In this article, faculty consulting activity is examined in the context of literature on university industry linkage mechanisms. Alternative hypotheses concerning the relationship between consulting and research productivity are developed around zero sum (time scarcity) and nonzero sum (complementary role) assumptions. Bivariate analysis on the basis of occupational groups indicates a positive relationship with productivity at low to moderate levels of consulting activity. The pattern is consistent with the complementary role thesis for all disciplinary groups except the Humanities. The general form of the relationship is sustained by an exploratory regression analysis involving selected controls for alternative sources of productivity variance. While additional research concerning casual relationships and effects on long-term knowledge production is needed, the evidence suggests that individual faculty consulting implies much more than income supplementation and should be the object of proactive human resource policies and practices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abetti, P. A. (1985). Milestones for managing technological innovation. Planning Review, 13, 18-22, 45-46.
2.
Alaemoni, L M. , & Yimer, M. (1973). An investigation of the relationship between colleague rating, student rating, research productivity and academic rank in rating instructional effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 274-277.
3.
Allen, T. J. (1988). Distinguishing engineers from scientists. In R. Katz (Ed.), Managing Professionals in Innovative Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
4.
Ashworth, G. (1986). Universities as seed-beds of enterprise: The demand for new roles and attitudes. Creativity and Innovation Network I2, 22-28.
5.
Astin, H. S. (1984). Academic scholarship and its rewards. In M. L. Maehr & M. W. Steinkamp (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
6.
Baba, M. L. (1987). University innovation to promote economic growth and university/industrial relations. In P. A. Abetti, C. W. Lemaistre, R. W. Smilor, & W. A. Wallace (Eds.), Technological Innovation and Economic Growth (pp. 191-218). Austin: University of Texas, IC2 Institute.
7.
Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57,195-203.
8.
Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204-213.
9.
Bok, D. (1982). Beyond the ivory tower: Social responsibilities of the modern university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
Boyer, C. M. , & Lewis, D. R. (1985). And on the Seventh Day: Faculty Consulting and Supplemental Income (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3). Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE).
11.
Carrier, H. D. , & Wallace, W. A. (in press). A philosophical comparison of decision aid techniques for the policy analystEvaluation and Program Planning.
12.
Cole, J. R. (1979). Fair science: Women in the scientific community. New York: Free Press.
13.
Coser, L. , & Coser, R. (1974). Greedy institutionsNew York: Free Press.
14.
Creswell, J. W. (1985). Faculty research performance: Lessons from the sciences and the social sciences (Report No. 4). Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Reports.
15.
Dent, P. L , & Lewis, D. L. (1976). The relationship between teaching effectiveness and research quality. Educational Research Quarterly, 1, 3-16.
16.
Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva, 21, 198-233.
17.
Faia, M. A. (1980). Teaching, research and role theory. Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 448, 36-45.
18.
Friedrich, R. J. , & Michalak, S. J. Jr. (1983). Why doesn't research improve teaching?: Some answers from a small liberal arts college. Journal of Higher Education, 54, 145-163.
19.
Gibbons, M. , & Johnston, R. D. (1974). The roles of science in technological innovation. Research Policy, 3, 220-242.
20.
Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483-496.
21.
Hayes, J. R. (1971). Research, teaching and faculty fate. Science, 1972, 227-230.
22.
Helmreich, R. L. , Spence, J. T., Beane, W. E., Lucker, G., & Matthews, K. A. (1980). Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 898-908.
23.
Hicks, R. A. (1974). The relationship between publishing and teaching effectivness. California Journal of Educational Research25, 14-46.
24.
Hoyt, D. P. , & Spangler, R. K. (1976). Faculty research involvement and instructional outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 4, 113-122.
25.
House, R. J. , Schuler, R. S., & Levanoni, E. (1983). Role conflict and ambiguity scales: Reality or artifacts?Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 388-396.
26.
Jackson, S. E. , & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 16-78.
27.
Kruskal, J. B. (1964a). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness-of-fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 28-42.
28.
Kruskal, J. B. (1964b). Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika, 29, 28-42.
29.
Linnell, R. H. (Ed.). (1982). Dollars and scholars: An inquiry into the impact of faculty income upon the function and future of the academy. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press.
30.
Linsky, A. S. , & Straus, M. A. (1975). Student evaluations, research productivity and eminence of college faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 54, 238-253.
31.
Long, J. S. (1978). Productivity and academic position in the scientific career. American Sociological Review, 43, 889-908.
32.
Louis, K. S. , Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 110-131.
33.
Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42, 921-936.
34.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: prediction and explanation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
35.
Pelz, D. C. , & Andrews, F. M. (1976). Scientists in organizations. Ann Arbor MI: Institute for Social Research.
36.
Peters, L , & Fusfeld, H. I. (1983). Current U.S. university-industry research connections. In University-industry research relationships (pp. 1-161). Washington, DC: National Science Board.
37.
Rebne, D. (1989). The social action perspective: Attachments to work and productivity in the research function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25, 37-57.
38.
Rebne, D. , & Berger Davidson, N. (1989). A criterion-based typology of knowledge production systems: Patterns of research production and the Biglan clusters (revisited). Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute. Atlanta, GA: Decision Sciences Institute.
39.
Rhodes, F.H.T. (1987). Universities and industry: Partners in technological innovation. In P. A. Abettiet al. (Eds.), Technological innovation and economic growth (pp. 181-190). Austin: University of Texas, IC2 Institute.
