Public research universities are experiencing a major transformation today as they become more entrepreneurial and engage in academic capitalism (Bok, 2003; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). At the same time, faculty members in higher educational institutions are pushed to integrate educational technology into their teaching (Bennett & Bennett, 2003). These two requirements appear to be conflicting demands and affect, among others, faculty performance and job motivation. An interpretive critical inquiry was conducted to understand the faculty experience of attending to the two apparently conflicting demands. Based on the findings, offered are suggestions and recommendations for organizational change that will serve to alleviate the conflicts faculty may experience as well as implications for HRD in public research universities in terms of addressing academic capitalism and teaching using educational technology. The stakeholders at whom this inquiry is aimed include faculty, administrators, students, HRD scholars and practitioners, as well as the system of the public research university.
AmielT. (2006). Mistaking computers for technology: Technology literacy and the digital divide. AACE Journal, 14, 235-256.
2.
BatesA. W.PooleG. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3.
BeckerG. S. (1992). Human capital and the economy. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 136(1), 85-92.
4.
BeggsT. A. (2000). Influences and barriers to the adoption of instructional technology. In Proceedings of the Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference (pp. 1-13). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED446764)
5.
BennettJ.BennettL. (2003). A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training program. Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 53-63.
6.
BensonA. D. (2004). Distance education: Ready and willing to serve the underserved?Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 51-57.
7.
BernardR. M.AbramiP. C.BorokhovskiE.WadeC. A.TamimR. M.SurkesM. A.BethelE. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.3102/003465430933384410.3102/0034654309333844
8.
BokD. (2003). Academic values and the lure of profit. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(30), pB7.
9.
BoyerE. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED326149)
10.
BrintS. (2005). Creating the future: “New directions” in American research universities. Minerva, 43(1), 23-50.
11.
ButlerD. L.SellbomM. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 25(2), 22-28.
12.
CallahanJ. L.SandlinJ. A. (2007). The tyranny of technology: A critical assessment of the social arena of online learning. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 21(3/4), 5-15.
ChoE.McLeanG. N. (2004). What we discovered about NHRD and what it means for HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 382-393.
16.
DooleyK. E.MurphyT. H. (2001). College of agriculture faculty perceptions of electronic technologies in teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(2), 1-10.
17.
DoyleW. R. (2009). Online education: The revolution that wasn’t. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 41(3), 56-58.
18.
EbersoleS.VorndamM. (2002, June24-29). Adoption of computer-based instructional methodologies: A case study. Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA 2002 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Denver, CO.
19.
EdelsonP. J.PittmanV. V. (2008). Historical perspectives on distance learning in the United States. In BrambleW. J.PandaS. (Eds.), Economics of distance learning and online learning: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 72-87). New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
ErtmerP. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.
21.
ErtmerP. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
22.
EstusE. L. (2010). Using Facebook within a geriatric pharmacotherapy course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(8), Article 145.
23.
EtzkowitzH. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64-77.
24.
EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.GebhardtC.TerraB. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313-330.
25.
FairweatherJ. S. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and research in faculty salaries. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 401-422.
26.
FeldmanM.DesrochersP. (2003). Research universities and local economic development: Lessons from the history of the Johns Hopkins University. Industry and Innovation, 10(1), 5-24.
27.
GeigerR. L. (2004). Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
28.
GoodpasterK. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53-73.
29.
GrovesM. M.ZemelP. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 56-64.
30.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
31.
GumportP. J.ChunM. (2005). Technology and higher education: Opportunities and challenges for the new era. In AltbachP. G.BerdahlR. O.GumportP. J. (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2nd ed., pp. 393-424). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
32.
HarrisS. (2005). Rethinking academic identities in neo-liberal times. Teaching in Higher Education, 10, 421-433.
33.
Häyrinen-AlestaloM.PeltolaU. (2006). The problem of a market-oriented university. Higher Education, 52, 251-281.
34.
HearnJ. C.HoldsworthJ. M. (2002). Influences of state-level policies and practices on college students’ learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(3), 6-39.
35.
JacobsenD. M. (1998). Adoption patterns of faculty who integrate computer technology for teaching in learning in higher education. In Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA/ED-TELECOM 98 World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference on Educational Telecommunications (pp. 2-9). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED428675)
36.
JaegerA. J.ThorntonC. H. (2006). Neither honor nor compensation: Faculty and public service. Educational Policy, 20, 345-366.
37.
JanuszewskiA.MolendaM. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
LatherP. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy within/in the postmodern. New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
LeongS. L.BaldwinC., D.UsatineR. P.AdelmanA. M.GjerdeC. L. (2000). Web-based education in family medicine predoctoral programs. Family Medicine, 32, 696-700.
40.
LincolnY. S. (n.d.). Criteria for assessing rigor or trustworthiness in research. Unpublished manuscript.
41.
LincolnY. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275-289.
42.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
43.
LynhamS. A.CunninghamP. W. (2006). National human resource development in transitioning societies in the developing world: Concepts and challenges. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8(1), 116-135.
44.
McLeanG. N. (2004). National human resource development: What in the world is it?Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 269-275.
45.
MeyerK. A. (2011). The influence of online teaching on faculty productivity. Innovative Higher Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10755-011-9183-y10.1007/s10755-011-9183-y
46.
MuilenburgL.BergeZ. L. (2001). Barriers to distance education: A factor-analytic study. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 7-22.
47.
PrivateerP. M. (1999). Academic technology and the future of higher education: Strategic paths taken and not taken. Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 60-79.
48.
ReiserR. A. (1987). Instructional technology: A history. In GagneR. M. (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 11-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
RenesS. L.StrangeA. T. (2011). Using technology to enhance higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 36, 203-213.
50.
SchwandtT. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
51.
SchultzT. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. American Economic Review, 51(1), 1-17.
52.
ShimM. K.ShimS. J. (2001). Mobile computing in higher education: Faculty perceptions of benefits and barriers. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 23, 345-354.
53.
SlaughterS.LeslieL. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
54.
SlaughterS.RhoadesG. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
55.
SlaughterS.RhoadesG. (2005). Markets in higher education: Students in the seventies, patents in the eighties, copyrights in the nineties. In AltbachP. G.BerdahlR. O.GumportP. J. (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2nd ed., pp. 486-516). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
56.
SlaughterS.RhoadesG. (2008). The academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime. In ChanA. S.FisherD. (Eds.), The exchange university: Corporatization of academic culture (pp. 19-48). Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
57.
SpradleyJ. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
58.
SpradleyJ. P. (1980). Participant observation. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
59.
SummervilleM. W. (2005). Uncomfortable convergence: Questions we may dare to ask. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 293-302.
60.
SuttonT. P.BergersonP. J. (Eds.). (2001). Faculty compensation systems: Impact on the quality of higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(2), 1-90.
61.
SwansonR. A.HoltonE. F. (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
62.
SweetlandS. R. (1996). Human capital theory: Foundations of field of inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 66, 341-359.
63.
TabataL. N.JohnsrudL. K. (2008). The impact of faculty attitudes toward technology, distance education, and innovation. Research in Higher Education, 49, 625-646.
64.
ThelinJ. R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
65.
TorracoR. J. (2001). Economics—Human capital theory and human resource development. In SwansonR. A.HoltonE. F.III (Eds.), Foundations of human resource development (pp. 106-114). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
66.
TorracoR. J. (Ed.). (2005). Organization development and change in universities [Special issue]. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(3).
WatkinsK. E. (2001). Philosophical metaphors for HRD theory and practice. In SwansonR. A.HoltonE. F.III (Eds.), Foundations of human resource development (pp. 70-83). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
69.
WestonT. J. (2005). Why faculty did—and did not—integrate instructional software in their undergraduate classrooms. Innovative Higher Education, 30(2), 99-115.
