Research in Higher Education, Vol. 42, No. 5, 2001

MANAGING PRODUCTIVITY IN ANACADEMIC INSTITUTION:Rethinking the Whom, Which, What, andWhose of Productivity

Gary Rhoades

:::: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :Drawing on a review of scholarly literature, this article suggests rethinking productiv-ity in academic institutions along four dimensions: the productivity of whom, produc-tivity for which unit of analysis, productivity according to what functions, and produc-tivity in whose interests. It offers principles for promoting enlightened discussion andpursuit of productivity at all levels of the organization. In contrast to the dominantdiscourse, which emphasizes focus, centralized standard measures, and account-ability, the bias in my principles is toward balance, decentralized diversity, and recali-bration. I suggest the ideal is not for employees and units to produce to centrallymanaged objectives but for all individuals and units to manage individually and col-lectively to design their work to improve their productivity along multiple dimensions.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::KEY WORDS: productivity; academic management; faculty.

In this article I draw on scholarship to reframe how we think about managingproductivity in academic institutions. My aim is to affect practitioners’ concep-tualization of productivity in four regards. First, who is focused on in efforts toincrease productivity? Second, which unit of analysis or organizational level isaddressed? Third, what functions or organizational roles are considered? Fourth,whose interests are invoked and served in designing productivity initiatives?

The research literature has much to tell practitioners but not by way of formu-las that practitioners can easily follow. Scholarly literature is not well suited tothat task.

The strength of scholars is that . . . they know that they must not be distracted byirrelevant details if they are to develop basic principles. The strength of policy makersis that . . . they know that only those embedded in the daily chaos of seemingly irrele-

Address correspondence to: Professor Gary Rhoades, Center for the Study of Higher Education,College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; GRhoades@mail.ed.arizona.edu.

619

0361-0365/01/1000-0619$19.50/0 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

620 RHOADES

vant details can make sound judgments in a dynamic environment. (Birnbaum, 2000,p. 126)

I offer general principles to inform the perception of “the problem,” leaving itto practitioners to apply those principles to develop policies and practices appro-priate to their context.

There has long been a certain perspective and storyline in the research thathas influenced the way practitioners think about the whom, which, what, andwhose of productivity. The focus has been on full-time faculty’s activities. Theunit of analysis has largely been the individual faculty member. The functionsconsidered have been narrow, short-term inputs and outputs in teaching andresearch. The interests invoked have been general categories of stakeholders.

Recent research alerts us to limitations of the prevailing perspective. I drawon this work to sensitize practitioners to alternative conceptualizations of pro-ductivity in academic institutions. I focus on data regarding faculty activitiesand productivity, and on the growing importance of support professionals inproduction processes. I address research findings regarding different organiza-tional levels of analysis in regards to productivity. I consider studies regardingthe interactive, long-term features of the various functions that colleges anduniversities perform. I invoke studies regarding stratification within and beyondhigher education, pointing to whose interests in particular higher education em-phasizes. Based on this literature review and inspired by Birnbaum’s (2000)Laws of Policy Scholarship (BLOPS), I pose questions and generate Rhoades’Principles of Managing Productivity (RPMPs).

THE PRODUCTIVITY OF WHOM?

In discussing the productivity of whom, I start where the prevailing perspec-tive begins and ends—with faculty. Scholarly literature and policy discussionabout productivity in academic institutions focus primarily on faculty activities.Most studies conceive of teaching and research as discrete, competitive activi-ties; most concentrate almost exclusively on faculty and teaching.

Recent research findings suggest a broader view. Research on individual fac-ulty yields counterintuitive findings about instructional activities and productiveeducational and research outcomes. Scholarship points to the interactive aspectsof faculty work, underscoring the significance of joint production. Finally, stud-ies point to the increasing presence of nonfaculty professionals and to theirinvolvement in production activities.

Contrary to prevailing views, recent national data show that faculty’s classtime and time with undergraduates have increased (Rhoades, 2000). Milem,Berger, and Dey (2000) found statistically significant increases from 1972 to1992 in faculty time in teaching for liberal arts colleges and for comprehensiveand doctoral granting universities; for research universities there was a statisti-

621MANAGING PRODUCTIVITY IN AN ACADEMIC INSTITUTION

cally insignificant (2%) decrease. Leslie, Rhoades, and Oaxaca (2000) found anincrease in average teaching loads in public research universities. Although fac-ulty prefer research (Finkelstein, 1995) and rewards favor research (Fairweather,1996), faculty have not been able to “ratchet” (Massy and Zemsky, 1994) downtheir involvement in classroom teaching.

Recent research has also examined faculty’s advising time, an instructionalactivity that unlike teaching load or time in the classroom has been found toimpact student outcomes. A large literature attests to the significance of suchinformal contact on student satisfaction, development, and persistence (Astin,1993; Kuh, Schuh, Whit, and Associates, 1991; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991).Milem, Berger, and Dey (2000) find a decline from 1972–1992 in faculty timeon advising in all institutional types. Massy and Zemsky (1999) found that moretime in the classroom may be correlated with less time with students outside theclassroom. In short, emphasizing one indicator (teaching load) of the “input side. . . of the productivity function” (Layzell, 1996, p. 277) may be counterproduc-tive in terms of another key indicator (out-of-class contact) that significantlyaffects student outcomes.

In the area of faculty research, studies have addressed productivity as well asactivity. The focus has been on publications (e.g., Bellas and Toutkoushian,1999). Publication productivity has increased significantly in all institutionaltypes (Dey, Milem, and Berger, 1997).

The prevailing view about faculty’s research activity is that it dominates theirtime to the detriment of instruction. Yet the strength of the claims about a trade-off is not matched by the strength of the evidence. In literature reviews, Feldman(1987) finds that research is weakly and positively related to teaching perfor-mance, and Braxton (1996) and Hattie and Marsh (1996) find no relationshipbetween research and teaching time. For practitioners, it is important to keep inmind that with the exception of private research universities, faculty spend thelargest amount of their time on instructional activities and no more than a thirdon research (Rhoades, 2000).

Moreover, several recent studies point to a “symbiotic relationship” betweenteaching and research (Middaugh, 1999). Clark (1987), Colbeck (1998), andLeslie, Rhoades, and Oaxaca (2000) find evidence of “joint production” thataccounts for between 10 to 20% of faculty’s time. Faculty, like any employeewith multiple roles, can realize efficiencies by jointly producing two of them(Brinkman, 1990). By incorporating students into their research activity as assis-tants, faculty jointly produce contact with students (productive instructional ac-tivity) and research.

Finally, data from recent studies point to growing numbers of nonfacultyprofessionals who represent major labor costs and are often involved in produc-ing teaching, research, service, and revenue. Most campus employees (over 70%in the 1990s) are not faculty. Faculty account for slightly more than half of

622 RHOADES

professional employees, versus nearly two thirds in the 1970s (Rhoades, 1998a).The ratio of administrators to faculty and of administrative to instructional costshas risen (Clotfelter, 1993; Gumport and Pusser, 1995; Leslie and Rhoades,1995), yet the largest growth in personnel has been in support professionals,who are neither administrators nor faculty. From 1975 to 1985 their ranks grew10 times faster than faculty (and three times faster than administrators), andtheir numbers continued to grow (by over 10%) in the early 1990s (when facultynumbers did not grow). Support professionals are increasingly involved in pro-duction. Multimedia, teaching center, and other professionals contribute to in-structional productivity in traditional and distance delivery systems. Technologytransfer professionals contribute to research productivity. Development profes-sionals generate revenue. Support professionals are part of the matrix of produc-tion (Rhoades, 1998a). In short, to understand productivity in academic institu-tions one has to go beyond faculty.

Given the recent literature, I offer general principles and corollaries for prac-titioners to consider regarding “the productivity of whom.”

RPMP #1: The focus on production principle: The focus of initiatives should bemore on encouraging productive (and quality) outcomes than on controllingemployees’ activities.

Controlling how faculty spend their time is one thing; fostering increased pro-ductivity in how that time is spent is another. In instructional activity, too mucheffort is being focused on directing faculty’s teaching load; too little is focusedon enhancing productive outcomes such as student credit hour generation,timely graduation, and student growth and satisfaction, as well as on activitiessuch as out-of-class contact with students that enhance these outcomes.

RPMP #2: The joint production principle: Productivity measures should pro-mote and factor in efficiencies in teaching and research obtained through jointproduction.

There are interactions among faculty activities. For instance, encouraginggreater student engagement with faculty’s research activities can enhance vari-ous educational outcomes. Such involvement should be part of the calculus offaculty’s instructional performance.

RPMP #3: The counterproductive principle: Every effort to promote productiv-ity has the potential to trigger counterproductive responses and outcomes.

The calibration corollary: Every effort to promote productivity should as-sess its effects after successive intervals of 1 year, up to 7 years.

Faculty not only may resist change they may respond to incentives/directives inways that lead to unintended and undesirable outcomes. Not all activities trans-

623MANAGING PRODUCTIVITY IN AN ACADEMIC INSTITUTION

late equally into productivity (e.g., in versus out-of-class student contact). Theeffects of productivity initiatives should be evaluated.

RPMP #4: The factors of production principle: Efforts to promote productivitymust include key nonfaculty factors and costs of production.

Nonfaculty technical and professional employees are part of instructional, re-search, service, and revenue production. Their activities and work should bepart of any calculus of productivity.

PRODUCTIVITY FOR WHICH UNIT OF ANALYSIS?

In discussing productivity for which unit of analysis, I look beyond individualfaculty and standardized models of production, which typifies the focus of theprevailing perspective. Recent research points to the importance of looking later-ally and vertically in the organization. Laterally, production takes place in de-partments and colleges, which have different production functions. In addition,studies indicate that distinctive divisions of labor (of tasks, individuals, andfunctions) within and among units make for joint production efficiencies thatagain vary by unit. Finally, looking vertically, production takes place at variousinstitutional levels. Increased productivity at one level does not necessarilytranslate into increased productivity at another level.

Individual faculty’s productivity is partly a function of their fields of work.Course loads and the nature of production vary by discipline. There are disci-plinary differences in how faculty conceive of and organize their research(Becher, 1989; Clark, 1987). Intellectual products also vary. Faculty in experi-mental sciences often coauthor articles of less than 10 pages with as many as10 or more colleagues; faculty in social sciences generally write fewer articlesof longer length and books. There is similar variation within science and engi-neering (Baird, 1991). The relationship between research productivity and teach-ing effectiveness varies as well in the social versus natural sciences (Hoyt andSpangler, 1976; Michalak and Friedrich, 1981).

Departmental patterns of production, processes, and outcomes also vary byfield (Braxton and Hargens, 1996). Different fields (and departments, colleges,and institutions) have different “production functions.” That affects time to de-gree (Stricker, 1994). Doctoral students in science are supported by external andinternal research monies; in humanities they are supported by teaching assistant-ships that slow their time to completion. In engineering and physical sciences ahigh ratio of graduate students to faculty is positively related to research produc-tivity; in social and behavioral sciences the relationship is negative (Dundar andLewis, 1998). What Middaugh (1999, p. 131) says about institutions and sys-tems is true of colleges within large universities: “[P]roductivity . . . and costs

624 RHOADES

at an institution or in a system are shaped by the mix of academic disciplines.”In short, a common productivity algorithm, such as is developed for responsibil-ity center management (RCM), makes no sense. The espoused aim of RCM andsimilar mechanisms to increase efficiency by decentralizing responsibility tothe production units is undermined by the centrally established standardizedalgorithms that fail to recognize, reward, and encourage efficiencies particularto the distinctive productive functions of various units.

Relatedly, departments, like faculty, have joint production efficiencies. It ischeaper to produce undergraduate instruction with graduate education, and toproduce the latter with research, than to produce them separately (Dundar andLewis, 1995). Contrary to popular perception, a department’s student credit hourproduction is not negatively affected by its research spending per faculty mem-ber (Ward, 1997). In addition, balance in a department is key to student learning:Volkwein and Carbone (1994) find that student growth outcomes are greatest indepartments with strong research and teaching environments, and are greater inexclusively research- as opposed to exclusively teaching-oriented departments.Educational productivity is enhanced by a “research-teaching nexus” (Clark,1997). At the same time, research productivity is enhanced by having somecenters and organized research units that enable institutions to tap into externalresearch markets (Geiger, 1990; Stahler and Tash, 1994).

There is limited data on support units’ organization and productivity. Yet,existing studies suggest that organizational choices—for example, whether tocentralize development offices—are not driven by productivity concerns andoutcomes (e.g., Grunig, 1995; Tolbert, 1985).

Looking vertically within universities, scholars and practitioners are comingto recognize an ecological fallacy in efforts to increase productivity by increas-ing faculty teaching load.

What must be resolved is the potentially dysfunctional aspect of a . . . policy that fo-cuses on individual productivity rather than institutional productivity. An institutioncould . . . have all its faculty teach the standard load, but reduce the total amount ofteaching provided. (Presley and Engelbride, 1998, p. 36)

Increased activity at one organizational level may not increase productivity atanother. Incentive structures designed to increase educational productivity byrewarding departmental and college credit hour generation can have counterpro-ductive effects (Rhoades, 2000a). Units may pursue strategies that increase stu-dent numbers and credit hours in some units at the expense of others (and ofeducational quality) without impacting the institution’s student numbers.

Given the recent literature, I offer general principles and corollaries for prac-titioners to consider regarding “productivity for which unit of analysis.”

RPMP #5: The fair measurement principle (b): It seems most “objective,” toapply uniform productivity measures across units, but is unfair and counter-productive to do so.

625MANAGING PRODUCTIVITY IN AN ACADEMIC INSTITUTION

The decentralization corollary: Productivity measures should be specifiedto local production units, not standardized across the institution.

The nature and factors of production vary systematically by field. So, too,should the measures by which we gauge and hold units accountable for theirproductivity vary.

RPMP #6: The production function principle: Productivity initiatives should betailored to units’ (including support units’) distinctive production functions,and to maximizing efficiencies obtained by a distinctive balance among itsvarious activities.

As with individual faculty (RPMP #2), academic and support units can realizejoint production efficiencies. The nature of these efficiencies varies by units. Ingeneral, a balanced division of labor in departments is optimal, although somespecialization (e.g., in research) can be effective.

RPMP #7: The ecological fallacy principle: Initiatives to promote productivityof academic units largely overlook support units and have the counterproduc-tive potential to promote undesirable behaviors that do not increase productiv-ity at the institutional level.

The calibration corollary (b): Every initiative to promote productivity ofand among units should assess its effects on units’ behaviors and institutionalproductivity after successive intervals of 1 year, up to 7 years.

What is productive for a department/college may not be for the institution. Pro-ductivity is increasingly a function of cooperation among academic and supportunits. In this context, initiatives that focus on academic units and pit themagainst each other can be counterproductive.

PRODUCTIVITY ACCORDING TO WHAT FUNCTIONS?

In discussing productivity according to what functions are considered, I beginwith the functions most commonly identified with colleges and universities—teaching and research. Most state-based systems of accountability focus on fac-ulty and institutional performance in instruction, with far less emphasis on re-search. In most cases, such outputs are measured and presented in annualreports. Typical of the general policy discourse, framed by concerns about bot-tom lines and revenue generation, the emphasis is on increasing efficiency. Yet,recent research calls into question the effectiveness of a narrow focus on andconceptualization of teaching and research, which overlooks key educational,social, and economic functions, and units of higher education.

State-based accountability efforts focus on instructional inputs and outputs,

626 RHOADES

premised on the assumption that there is a trade-off between teaching and re-search. Yet econometric analysis of national data on institutional expenditureschallenges the view that there is a “substitution effect,” that the more an institu-tion attends to research the less it attends to instruction. Instead, there is an“income effect”: as institutions gain income from research some of that addi-tional revenue is used for instruction (Hasbrouck, 1997). Along the same lines,another (regression) analysis found a positive relationship between institutionalprestige, research activity, and graduation rates (Kim, Rhoades, and Woodard,2000).

In short, balance is important. In the case of research and teaching, comparingthe U.S. to Europe, Clark (1993, 1995) found that what sets us apart, and whatother systems seek to imitate, is the “research-teaching nexus” in departmentsand institutions. Balance is also important in nonresearch settings. In a nationalstudy of community colleges, Smart and Hamm (1993) found that performingmultiple missions is associated with effectiveness. Thus, we must go beyondone-dimensional conceptions of production to incorporate institutions’ full rangeof functions, with the aim of optimizing the relationship among them.

Indeed, focusing on short-term efficiencies can be counterproductive. For ex-ample, some performance-based models focus on adminstrative size and/or ex-penditures. Yet, student affairs expenditures are positively related to affectiveand cognitive outcomes for students (Astin, 1993). As the latter measures arelonger term and more complex than simple measures of administrative cost (orstudent graduation rates), they remain relatively unconsidered. By emphasizingshort-term efficiency, as state-level performance-based systems do (Burke andModarresi, 2000; Lovell, 2000), we run the risk of sacrificing long-term quality.

An efficiency focus can be self-defeating in another regard. Burke and Mo-darresi (2000) find that performance funding systems that have been most effec-tive and have been more likely to survive are those that stress quality more thanefficiency. Those systems that have been abandoned tend to have focused moreon efficiency and on a long list of performance indicators.

Further, the goal of optimizing efficiency and the pattern of increasingly re-stricted state support for higher education can lead institutions away from theirbasic functions of instruction and access. They are not diverted so much byresearch as they are by pursuing new sources of revenue. Slaughter and Leslie(1997) explore patterns of “academic capitalism” in which faculty and institu-tions invest in efforts to generate external revenues, pursuing new monies at themargins at the expense of instructional activities. Along similar lines, there is apattern in student services of expanding and increasing the range and cost ofvarious student fees (Woodard, 1995). If this is efficient in terms of one bottomline, it can be costly in terms of another bottom line for not-for-profit institu-tions, expanding access to lower income students.

Given the recent literature, I offer general principles and corollaries for prac-titioners to consider regarding “productivity according to what functions.”

627MANAGING PRODUCTIVITY IN AN ACADEMIC INSTITUTION

RPMP #8: The optimization principle: The goal should be less to maximize anygoal or function than to optimize the performance of various goals and func-tions, grounded in a data-based understanding of interactions and cross-sub-sidies across units and functions.

As with individuals and intermediary production units, institutions have interre-lated functions and units. Efficiencies attach to the performance of various func-tions and units (including support) in combination. Inefficiencies result fromoveremphasis on one at the expense of others.

RPMP #9: The misplaced efficiency principle: The tendency is for isolated,short-term, simple efficiency and revenue-focused measures of outputs to takepreeminence over interactive, longer-term, complex quality considerations, tothe detriment of fundamental educational, social, and economic functions ofthe institution.

The substantive function corollary: Productivity initiatives should addressqualitative issues as to the particular content and value of what is being pro-duced.

Current initiatives can be pennywise and pound foolish in concentrating onshort-term costs, revenues, and measurables. Academic institutions are nonprofitorganizations that serve multiple constituencies. They must perform a healthymix of functions. Currently, efforts concentrate too much on productivity andtoo little on the substance of what is being produced.

PRODUCTIVITY IN WHOSE INTERESTS?

In discussing productivity in whose interests, I begin with two categories thatare invoked in discussions of stakeholders—faculty and students. As the storygoes, institutions are now organized to serve the interests of faculty; they shouldbe reorganized to serve the interests of students. Recent research points to com-peting interests within these two categories. Much the same holds true withrespect to the commonly invoked external stakeholder, employers. There arecompeting categories of employers, and we focus on some more than on others.Using universalistic categories blinds us to the differential and stratifying effectsof higher education.

Policies aimed at increasing efficiency in instruction differentially impact dif-ferent student populations. Efforts to enhance institutions’ revenues and studentpopulations have corresponded to reduced access for underserved populations.Shifts in federal and state financial aid policy to high tuition and not enoughaid (Griswold and Marine, 1996), and from grants to loans (both of which disad-vantage lower middle and working class students) are also found at the institu-tional level, where the greatest growth is in nonneed-based aid, and where lever-

628 RHOADES

aging and tuition discounting focus monies on high scoring students,disproportionately of upper middle to upper class backgrounds. The result is, inrelative terms, increased access for students from the highest family incomequartile and reduced access for those from the other quartiles (Mortenson, 1995).

So, too, with the faculty. Reorganizing to enhance productivity has meantretrenching some faculty and units while reallocating new monies and facultylines to others (Gumport, 1993; Slaughter, 1993). Recent decades have seen asupply side higher education: resources flow to already well-resourced units,which are seen as close to the market and potentially productive (of externalmonies), they flow away from under resourced units, which are seen as far fromthe corporate market, and as subsidized (Rhoades and Slaughter, 1997). Thatpattern is related to increasingly stratified salaries for faculty (Bellas, 1997;Rhoades, 1998b), administrators, and support professionals (Rhoades, 1995).The pattern favors fields connected to the private sector over those linked topublic and human services sectors; it disadvantages fields with higher percent-ages of students from underserved populations.

The need to disaggregate also applies to external stakeholders, such as em-ployers. That term is generally equated with private sector employers. Indeed,academic capitalism (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997) has involved academic institu-tions linking academics more closely to a particular type of private capital—global corporations. The interests of these companies are not the same as thoseof smaller, local enterprises. Moreover, the public sector is a major employer.The interests of this sector, in terms of curriculum and outreach/service activity,are different than those of the private sector. To invoke “employers” generallyis to ignore the particular interests being served.

Given the recent literature, I offer general principles and corollaries for prac-titioners to consider regarding “productivity in whose interests.”

RPMP #10: The disaggregated stakeholder principle: Definitions of the stake-holders who may be consulted about and affected by productivity effortsshould go beyond general categories such as “students” to include importantsubgroups within larger populations.

Current definitions of stakeholders gloss over important differences within them.In order to get meaningful input and to meaningfully assess the impact of pro-ductivity initiatives, we must move to more specific definitions that capture thereal political interests involved.

RPMP #11: The stratification principle: In developing productivity initiatives,their affect on social stratification within and outside of the institution shouldbe considered.

The social justice corollary: Productivity initiatives should be assessed,

629MANAGING PRODUCTIVITY IN AN ACADEMIC INSTITUTION

each year for at least a decade, as to their impact on social stratification withinthe institution and in society, and external interest groups should participate inthe assessment.

As not-for-profit institutions, higher education should focus on the public inter-est, as defined in part by increasing access. As institutions that are central tothe American dream of achieving upward mobility, and to social justice, theyshould consider the extent to which they serve and provide real opportunities tosegments of American society to move up the economic ladder versus providinga mechanism by which the already advantaged maintain and gain position.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

In sum, what can be said about productivity in higher education? Recentresearch leads to the conclusion that the prevailing perspective regarding pro-ductivity should be laid to rest. Too often initiatives focus on the activities ofindividual faculty, as the only production workers, and on a linear, standardizedprocess of mass production. Yet, we know that work in higher education in-volves teamwork and collectivities at various levels, overlap and interactionamong faculty and other professionals, and multidimensional production pro-cesses that vary by unit.

As a result, instead of revving up an institution’s engines of productivity bytrying to gear everyone to central management’s measures, I suggest promotingan enlightened discussion and pursuit of productivity by adhering to RPMPs. Incontrast to the dominant discourse, which emphasizes focus, centralized stan-dard measures, and accountability, the bias in my principles is toward balance,decentralized diversity, and recalibration. Each institutional context may yieldvarying responses in rethinking the productivity of whom, for which unit ofanalysis, according to what function, and in whose interests. At their best, dis-cussions and initiatives will raise the consciousness not only of employees butof employers and managers, challenging them to think and work creatively andstrategically to improve productivity. The key is not for employees and unitsto produce to centrally managed uniform objectives, but for them to manageindividually and collectively to strategically design their work to improve pro-ductivity along multiple dimensions.

REFERENCES

Allen, Henry L. (1996). Faculty workload and productivity in the 1990s: preliminaryfindings. In The NEA 1996 Almanac of Higher Education, pp. 21–34. Washington,DC: National Education Association.

Astin, Alexander W. (1993). What Matters in College?: Four Critical Years Revisited.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

630 RHOADES

Baird, Leonard L. (1986). What characterizes a productive research department? Re-search in Higher Education 25(3): 211–225.

Baird, Leonard L. (1991). Publication productivity in doctoral research departments: in-terdisciplinary and intradisciplinary factors. Research in Higher Education 32(3):303–318.

Becher, Tony. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and theCultures of Disciplines. Milton Keynes, England: The Society for Research intoHigher Education & Open University Press.

Bellas, Marcia L. (1997). Disciplinary differences in faculty salaries: does gender biasplay a role? The Journal of Higher Education 68(3): 299–321.

Bellas, Marcia L., and Toutkoushian, Robert K. (1999). Faculty time allocations andresearch productivity: gender, race, and family effects. The Review of Higher Educa-tion 22(4): 367–390.

Birnbaum, Robert. (2000). Policy scholars are from Venus; policy makers are from Mars.The Review of Higher Education 23(2): 119–132.

Braxton, John M. (1996). Contrasting perspectives on the relationship between teachingand research. In John M. Braxton (ed.), Faculty Teaching and Research: Is There aConflict? New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 90, pp. 5–14. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Braxton, John M., and Hargens, Lowell L. (1996). Variations among academic disci-plines: analytic frameworks and research. In John C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education:Handbook of Theory and Research, pp. 1–46. New York: Agathon.

Brinkman, Paul. (1990). Higher education cost functions. In Stephen Hoenack and EileenCollins (Eds.), The Economics of American Universities, pp. 107–128. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Burke, Joseph C., and Modarresi, Shahpar. (2000). To keep or not to keep performancefunding: signals from shareholders. The Journal of Higher Education 71(4): 454–475.

Clark, Burton R. (1987). The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds. Princeton,NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Clark, Burton R. (Ed.) (1993). The Research Foundations of Graduate Education: Ger-many, Britain, France, United States, Japan. Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress.

Clark, Burton R. (1995). Places of Inquiry: Research and Advanced Education in Mod-ern Universities. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Clark, Burton R. (1997). The modern integration of research activities with teaching andlearning. The Journal of Higher Education 68(3): 241–255.

Clotfelter, C. T. (1993). Economic Challenges in Higher Education. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Colbeck, Carol L. (1998). Merging in a seamless blend: how faculty integrate teachingand research. The Journal of Higher Education 69(6): 647–671.

Dey, Eric L., Milem, Jeffrey F., and Berger, Joseph B. (1997). Changing patterns ofpublication productivity: accumulative advantage or institutional isomorphism? Sociol-ogy of Education 70(4): 308–323.

Dundar, Halil, and Lewis, Darrell R. (1995). Departmental productivity in Americanuniversities: economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education Review 14(2):119–144.

Dundar, Halil, and Lewis, Darrell R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity inhigher education. Research in Higher Education 39(6): 607–632.

Fairweather, James. (1996). Faculty Work and the Public Trust: Restoring the Value ofTeaching and Public Service in American Academic Life. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

631MANAGING PRODUCTIVITY IN AN ACADEMIC INSTITUTION

Feldman, Kenneth A. (1987). Research productivity and scholarly accomplishments ofcollege teachers as related to their instructional effectiveness. Research in Higher Edu-cation 26(3): 227–298.

Finkelstein, Martin J. (1995). College faculty as teacher. In The NEA 1995 Almanac ofHigher Education, pp. 33–48. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Geiger, Roger L. (1990). Organized research units—their role in the development ofuniversity research. The Journal of Higher Education 61(1): 1–19.

Griswold, Carolyn P., and Marine, Ginger Minton. (1996). Political influences on statepolicy: higher tuition, higher aid, and the real world. The Review of Higher Education19(4): 361–390.

Grunig, Stephen D. (1995). The impact of development office structure on fund-raisingefficiency for research and doctoral institutions. The Journal of Higher Education66(6): 686–699.

Gumport, Patricia J. (1993). The contested terrain of academic program reduction. TheJournal of Higher Education 64(3): 283–311.

Gumport, Patricia J., and Pusser, Brian. (1995). A case of bureaucratic accretion: contextand consequences. The Journal of Higher Education 66(5): 493–520.

Hasbrouck, Norma Sue. (1997). Implications of the changing funding base of publicuniversities. Doctoral Dissertation, Center for the Study of Higher Education, Univer-sity of Arizona.

Hattie, John, and Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching:a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 66(4): 507–542.

Hoyt, D. P., and Spangler, R. K. (1974). Interrelationships among instructional effective-ness, publication record, and monetary reward. Research in Higher Education 2(1):81–88.

Kim, Mikyong, Rhoades, Gary, and Woodard Jr., Dudley B. (2000). Sponsored researchversus graduating students?: public research universities. Unpublished manuscript,under review.

Kuh, George, Schuh, J., Whitt, Elizabeth, and Associates. (1991). Involving Colleges.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Layzell, Daniel T. (1996). Faculty workload and productivity: recurrent issues with newimperatives. The Review of Higher Education 19(3): 267–282.

Leslie, David W. (1996). “Strategic Governance:” The Wrong Questions? The Review ofHigher Education 20(1): 101–112.

Leslie, Larry L., and Rhoades, Gary. (1995). Rising administrative costs: on seekingexplanations. The Journal of Higher Education 66(2): 187–212.

Leslie, Larry L., Rhoades, Gary, and Oaxaca, Ron. (2000). The effects of changing reve-nue patterns on public research universities. NSF Report for NSF Grant #9628325.

Lovell, Cheryl D. (2000). Past and future pressures and issues of higher education: stateperspectives. In Joseph Losco and Brian L. Fife (eds.), Higher Education in Transi-tion: The Challenges of the New Millennium, pp. 109–133. Westport, CT: Bergin andGarvey.

Massy, William F., and Zemsky, Robert. (1994). Faculty discretionary time: departmentsand the “Academic Ratchet.” The Journal of Higher Education 65(1): 1–22.

Michalak, S. J., and Freidrich, R. J. (1981). Research productivity and teaching effective-ness at a small liberal arts college. The Journal of Higher Education 52(6): 578–597.

Middaugh, Michael F. (1999). Instructional productivity of systems. In Gerald H. Gaither(ed.), The Multicampus System: Perspectives on Practice and Prospects, pp. 122–142.Sterling, VA: Stylus.

632 RHOADES

Milem, Jeffrey F., Berger, Joseph B., and Dey, Eric L. (2000). Faculty time allocation:a study of change over time. The Journal of Higher Education 71(4): 454–475.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning: Reconceiving Roles forPlanning, Plans, Planners. New York: Free Press.

Mortenson, T. (1995). Educational attainment by family income, 1970–1994. Postsec-ondary Education OPPORTUNITY 41: 1–8.

Pascarella, Ernest T., and Terenzini, Patrick T. (1991). How College Affects Students:Findings and Insights from Over Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Presley, Jennifer B., and Engelbride, Edward. (1998). Accounting for faculty productivityin the research university. The Review of Higher Education 22(1): 17–38.

Rhoades, Gary. (1995). Rising, stratified administrative costs: student services’ place. InDudley B. Woodard Jr. (ed.), Budgeting as a Tool for Policy in Student Affairs. NewDirections for Student Services, No. 70, pp. 25–38. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rhoades, Gary. (1998a). Reviewing and rethinking administrative costs. In John C. Smart(ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Practice, pp. 11–47. New York:Agathon Press.

Rhoades, Gary. (1998b). Managed Professionals: Unionized Faculty and RestructuringAcademic Labor. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Rhoades, Gary. (2000a). Who’s doing it right: strategic activity in public research univer-sities. The Review of Higher Education 24(1): 41–66.

Rhoades, Gary. (2000b). The changing role of faculty. In Joseph Losco and Brian L.Fife (eds.), Higher Education in Transition: The Challenges of the New Millennium,pp. 29–50. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

Rhoades, Gary, and Slaughter, Sheila. (1997). Academic capitalism, managed profession-als, and supply side higher education. Social Text 51 15(2): 9–38.

Slaughter, Sheila, and Leslie, Larry L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies,and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Smart, John C., and Hamm, Russell E. (1993). Organizational effectiveness and missionorientation of two-year colleges. Research in Higher Education 34(4): 489–502.

Stahler, Gerald J., and Tash, William R. (1994). Centers and Institutes in the researchuniversity: issues, problems, and prospects. The Journal of Higher Education 65(5):540–554.

Stricker, Lawrence J. (1994). Institutional factors in time to the doctorate. Research inHigher Education 35(5): 569–588.

Tolbert, Pamela. (1985). Institutional environments and resource dependence: adminis-trative structure in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly30: 1–13.

Volkwein, J. Fredericks, and Carbone, David A. (1994). The impact of departmentalresearch and teaching climates on undergraduate growth and satisfaction. The Journalof Higher Education 65(2): 147–167.

Ward, Gary Tripp. (1997). The effects of separately budgeted research expenditures onfaculty instructional productivity in undergraduate education. Doctoral Dissertation,Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of Arizona.

Woodard, Dudley B. Jr. (Ed.) (1995). Budgeting as a Tool for Policy in Student Affairs.New Directions for Student Services, No. 70. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zemsky, Robert, and Massy, William F. (1999). Telling time: comparing faculty instruc-tional practices at three types of institutions. Change (March/April): 55–58.

Received April 20, 2000.