Improving undergraduate education is a major concern of higher education stakeholders: students, parents, faculty members, administrators, state legislators, and members of national associations. A spate of literature has emerged around this concern, some of which pertains to the reform of the undergraduate curriculum. Other literature addresses the betterment of individual teaching and learning.
Because both the curriculum (Toombs and Tierney, 1991) and teaching are instruments of faculty professional practice, curricular reform and improvements in teaching and learning depend on the preferences and expertise of faculty Such preferences may be shaped by the extent of faculty engagement in research and scholarship.
Some authors claim that research activity creates a faculty culture that is unsupportive of curricular reform. Gaff (1988) asserts that the general education of nonmajors is least important to faculty in this culture of research and scholarship; further, research is also more highly valued than teaching; graduate teaching is more highly regarded than undergraduate teaching; and within undergraduate teaching, advanced courses are preferred over introductory courses.
Research activity also leads to specialization. Massy and Zemsky (1994) contend that such specialization has affected the structure and coherence of the undergraduate curriculum. In particular, the Association of American Colleges report Integrity in the College Curriculum (1985) points to a lack of breadth in the general education course requirements of some institutions. Consequently, faculty who are actively engaged in research may be less likely to place importance on acquiring a breadth of knowledge as an important goal of NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH, no 90, Summer 1996 Q jossey-Bass Publishers