That is certainly encouraging for those who fear that great teachers specialize in pedagogy at the expense of research.
On the other hand, it is disappointing to observe that weak undergraduate teachers do not make up for their limitations in the classroom with disproportionate research excellence.
Administrators and policy makers worried about whether research will suffer due to efforts in the classroom, or vice versa, should have their fears at least partially allayed.
This result seems especially relevant in evaluating the recent move at the University of California to effectively grant tenure to some of their full-time teaching faculty.
How might one recognize stellar scholarship across chemistry and theater, engineering and music, economics and English, mathematics and anthropology? One is holistic: whether a committee of distinguished professors from a wide range of disciplines selects a professor for a university-wide honor.
The second is quantitative, reflecting how influential that professor’s work has been relative to others in that person’s field. While teaching evaluations from students are ubiquitous, they often reflect a professor’s grading patterns rather than genuine instructional quality, and they also exhibit gender, racial, and ethnic biases.
We use two different measures of teaching quality and two different measures of research quality to determine the relationship between teaching and research excellence.
Our biggest challenge on the research side is that scholarly performance is so different across disciplines.