The percentage of teaching-only academics in the United Kingdom (UK) grew from 10 per cent of the academic workforce in 2002 to 26 per cent in 2014-15, reaching 32 per cent in 2020-21, 36 per cent in 2022-23, and is steadily increasing.
Such appointments sever the traditionally combined ‘teaching’ and ‘research’ functions of academics.
This is problematic if progressive teaching-only academics were to restrict the transmission of knowledge to ideologically palatable information. In such a case, universities become centres of indoctrination, not places of light and learning that cultivate the education of critical thinkers but would serve as vehicles for the transmission of progressive ideas, and the adoption of ideological positions.
These positions, while politically agreeable, might involve the promotion of preferential treatment of designated racial groups, or the incitement of antisemitic activity, sometimes revealing the willingness of universities to tolerate the intolerable. The absence of critical thinking might also result in the implementation of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness (DEI) policies that disembowel the merit principle which requires the appointment of the most meritorious applicants to academic positions.
The trend to increase teaching-only positions repudiates the traditional Humboldtian and Millian view of research and teaching as interactive activities. Yet, this trend finds support in studies that minimise the consequences of the severing of the teaching and research functions of academics.
A recent study even claims that these consequences are ‘statistically insignificant’ and ‘excludes both (i) the existence of a negative link in terms of workload – contradicting considerations such as, ‘those who do more teaching have less time to do research and vice versa’ – and (ii) the existence of a positive link in terms of the quality of the results obtained – contradicting considerations such as, ‘those who obtain high quality results in research are likely to do the same in teaching and vice versa’.
Nevertheless, the division of academic functions into ‘teaching’ and ‘research’ exenterates the idea of the university because teaching would not be informed by solid research activity Without the continual interplay between research and teaching, universities risk becoming places where ideas are recited, not questioned, and where learning is static, not dynamic.
The UK has responded to these challenges by introducing the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), the Research Excellence Framework (REF), and the Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF). These frameworks reflect a sector-wide emphasis on teaching quality, research, and societal impact, respectively. Consequently, research-active academics face mounting pressure to enhance productivity, while the significant increase in teaching-only academic roles focuses on the delivery of allegedly high-quality teaching to meet rising student expectations and government-imposed accountability standards. These initiatives signal a sector-wide shift toward the compartmentalisation of academic labour,
The popularity of teaching-only positions is the result of a steady decline in public funding which has compelled universities to rely more heavily on external research income and tuition fees, particularly from international students, thereby accelerating the marketisation of higher education and impelling institutions to operate in increasingly competitive and performance-oriented environments. Meanwhile, teaching-only academics who espouse progressive political, economic, and societal ideologies transform the UK’s higher education landscape.
In the United Kingdom, this trend of appointing teaching-only academics is intensifying in the lead-up to the REF 2029, the aim of which is to optimise institutional ‘research intensity’. Concurrently, the forthcoming TEF cycle, set to begin in 2026-27, is expected to reinforce the strategic importance of teaching excellence within UK higher education. Together, these developments reflect a broader recalibration of academic roles, institutional performance measures, and workforce planning in response to unprecedented challenges caused by increasing number of students and worsening of the university sector’s funding arrangements. Within this evolving landscape, the introduction of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) purports to elevate the status of teaching and pedagogical excellence within the UK higher education sector. Hence, the growth of teaching-only positions, most notable in institutions experiencing the largest increases in student enrolment, indicates the existence of an inclination to adapt traditional academic workforce models to changing sectoral demands.
In recent years, research-intensive universities in the UK – particularly the 24 leading Russell Group institutions – have increasingly appointed education-focused academics and have introduced distinct and separate promotion criteria tailored to this cohort. For example, at the University of Manchester, two differentiated sets of promotion criteria are now in place: one for academics on teaching-and-research contracts, and another for those employed in teaching-focused roles under teaching and scholarship contracts. Following extensive consultation, these criteria were revised in 2024 to provide greater clarity around the notion of ‘scholarship’, broadly defined as pedagogical research. This redefinition supports a stronger epistemic foundation for university teaching. However, there is no denying that such development constitutes a conscious effort to dismantle the traditional understanding of the university as an institution which, using the language of John Hery Newman, is to make the promotion of an ‘intellectual culture its direct scope, or to employ itself in the education of the intellect’. In separating the acts of extending knowledge (research) from the acts of telling (teaching), universities risk trivialising the formative educational experience and diminishing their role as places where the intellect is not merely trained, but cultivated.
Rather than treating teaching and research as isolated activities, universities would benefit from recognising their interaction as a strategic asset. Of course, universities endeavour to respond to quite dramatic and technological changes. But they may well have responded too much. What they often fail to appreciate is that, occasionally, a very considered and wise approach to a challenge is to make no changes at all, politically difficult though such a decision might be. This is because there is the frequently expressed principle that there exists a strong element of permanency in the values or properties of universities. Notwithstanding attempts by people, or groups of people, to hijack universities to their own purposes, the community of scholars – the heart of the university – is obliged to do its utmost to continue these values and properties. This community has a duty not only to evolve wisely but, where necessary, to resist change that undermines these foundational purposes. In doing so, it ensures that the university remains not merely a responsive organisation, but a principled institution.
Hence, the appointment of teaching-only academics is fraught with dangers in that it despoils the ideal of academic integrity and impartiality by weakening the vital connection between teaching and research. When academics are tasked solely with instruction, without the anchoring discipline of active scholarship, the transmission of knowledge becomes more vulnerable to ideological bias, intellectual stagnation, and politicisation. In such a model, the university drifts further from its role as a guardian of independent thought and rigorous inquiry, and closer to becoming an instrument of cultural messaging.
