3 ms·

> Not least because in academia, either you teach, or you do research. You can't do both. This is not true in general. In NZ, most academic positions are 40%

by mkl 2y ago

> Not least because in academia, either you teach, or you do research. You can't do both. This is not true in general. In NZ, most academic positions are 40% research, 40% teaching, and 20% admin. Lecturers, distinguished professors, and everyone in between. Big research grants can provide temporary buy-out of some teaching, but it's explicitly part of the role, and not often reduced completely for long. Maybe 10% of academic roles at my university don't include research.

oersted1234 2y ago
Yes, I don't understand that point either as all UK Lecturer job positions I have interviewed for (quite a few!) required at least 40% of teaching. A 40% teaching is the most research-intensive contract you can get at most universities. Good departments will still let you enjoy a sane workload because they will allocate a realistic amount of that 40% for teaching preparation, marking duties, etc.
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  Well, lectureships are teaching jobs, not research jobs, that's my point. I don't think it has anything to do with the department, if you sign a contract that says you have to teach, you're gonna have to teach, however much of your time it takes- and it is going to take up most of your time. Anyway from my point of view, any amount of time you spend on not doing research is a mallus on your productivity as a researcher. I mean that's why most mid-level and senior academics leave the research to their PhD students and post-docs. Yes? Because they don't have the time to do it themselves.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
I see what you're saying, but 60% of time spent doing something else than research, is not a research position. That is no way to be productive as a researcher. The upshot of this is what I point out in my other comments, that you end up offloading the research work to PhDs and post-docs while you take the back seat and of course keep the funds coming so that they can do their job. ... although my PI didn't :)

by mkl 2y ago

oersted1234 2y ago

Yes, I don't understand that point either as all UK Lecturer job positions I have interviewed for (quite a few!) required at least 40% of teaching. A 40% teaching is the most research-intensive contract you can get at most universities. Good departments will still let you enjoy a sane workload because they will allocate a realistic amount of that 40% for teaching preparation, marking duties, etc.

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
Well, lectureships are teaching jobs, not research jobs, that's my point. I don't think it has anything to do with the department, if you sign a contract that says you have to teach, you're gonna have to teach, however much of your time it takes- and it is going to take up most of your time. Anyway from my point of view, any amount of time you spend on not doing research is a mallus on your productivity as a researcher. I mean that's why most mid-level and senior academics leave the research to their PhD students and post-docs. Yes? Because they don't have the time to do it themselves.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago

I see what you're saying, but 60% of time spent doing something else than research, is not a research position. That is no way to be productive as a researcher. The upshot of this is what I point out in my other comments, that you end up offloading the research work to PhDs and post-docs while you take the back seat and of course keep the funds coming so that they can do their job. ... although my PI didn't :)