The traditional model of higher education institutions in the UK has largely relied on student recruitment as the primary means of funding both staff salaries and research activities. However, a boom in student enrolments has created a critical challenge: how to maintain an equilibrium between student satisfaction and research output. As institutions allocate more importance toward research endeavours, the quality of teaching and overall student satisfaction are sidelined, highlighting the inherent tension between these competing priorities.
Among the leading factors in attracting international students are the university league tables, which heavily rely on students’ satisfaction. Most UK league tables rely on the National Student Survey (NSS) yearly data as a student satisfaction measure. Universities have started recognising the importance of Education and Scholarship (E&S) academic roles to maintain a good balance between education and research. The E&S employment contract is designed for academic faculty whose primary focus is on teaching and learning. These roles are pivotal to enhancing student experience, especially in the face of growing student numbers and demands for high-quality teaching. Despite this correlation, it is puzzling to see the lack of E&S vacancies at UK higher institutions, as well as the lack of career progression opportunities for the existing E&S academics. This blog article aims to explore the reasons behind the lack of vacancies in E&S, and its consequences for the Higher Education sector overall and on individual E&S academics in particular.
The main reason behind the lack of E&S contracts is behavioural in nature. Teaching-focused roles are generally perceived as inferior to research-focused ones, even when they are equally paid. In terms of research, there is far less recognition of excellence in education and scholarship compared to excellence in subject-specific research output. Additionally, there is far less recognition of providing excellence in teaching and student satisfaction, compared to publishing articles in highly ranked journals (rankings are usually based on CABS, Scopus, ABDC, among others). This mindset is automatically translated onto the roles themselves. Budgets and vacancies are decided by research-oriented line managers, who still believe that an excellent researcher can in theory deliver excellence in teaching when reality proves otherwise.
The other aspect is practical. The rise of E&S contracts is relatively recent; only 10 years ago there were barely any roles available that would allow academics to focus on developing pedagogy-focused research and activities. Because the E&S contracts are still relatively new, there is a lack of knowledge about the unique skills a teaching-focused academic might offer, and how to employ these skills in the best interest of an institution. This gap in awareness extends to management, where universities often struggle to integrate teaching-focused academics into their long-term strategic goals. Without clear promotion criteria or structured career pathways, E&S staff face barriers to advancement, which not only limits their professional growth but could also lead to legal issues under labour rights if these roles remain undefined.
In terms of the consequences, the imbalance between education and research importance has contributed to serious problems in higher education. First, there has been a clear decline in both teaching and student satisfaction. As previously noted, low levels of student satisfaction can lead to a drop in student recruitment. This is not to imply that research-active academics are to blame; rather, they often lack the time to improve the student experience due to the greater emphasis being placed on research over teaching.
Second, a major problem worth highlighting is the limited career progress related to the E&S tracks. As teaching achievements remain undervalued in comparison to research publications, this leads to limited promotion prospects for the E&S staff. Teaching-focused staff often experience frustration as they watch research-active colleagues climb the academic ladder, despite great efforts being put into pedagogical research and teaching innovation. With fewer opportunities for progression and recognition available for the E&S staff, burnout and job dissatisfaction can be common issues. This can lead to a sense of professional stagnation, and limited access to leadership roles or involvement in strategic decision-making.
Third, the disparity between research and teaching tracks means that E&S academics struggle to demonstrate transferable achievements when applying for roles at other institutions. While research-focused positions are more prevalent and often exist at different institutions across the UK, there are far fewer E&S roles available. This imbalance creates a bottleneck for teaching-focused staff looking to move between universities or explore opportunities abroad. The fewer numbers of these contracts translate into limited work mobility for E&S colleagues. The scarcity of these roles also means that when vacancies do arise, competition is fierce, and opportunities for career progression can be elusive. This competitive environment restricts the pool of institutions that teaching staff can apply to, further reducing mobility. The issue is even more pronounced if they intend to diversify their CV and look for opportunities abroad. Such contracts appear practically non-existent in Europe. The restricted mobility of teaching-focused staff has significant implications on their professional development.
Finally, the combined issues discussed previously can create a chain effect impacting the sector overall: the lack of mobility limits the exchange of innovative teaching practices between institutions, restricting opportunities for professional growth, institutional diversity and economic prosperity.
In conclusion, the lack of E&S roles and clear promotion criteria for teaching-focused staff poses a challenge in higher education but also offers an opportunity for innovation. By developing robust career pathways and valuing teaching and research tracks equally, universities can boost student satisfaction, enhance recruitment, and foster a more inclusive academic culture.
