The Imbalanced Scale: An Economic Analysis of the "Research-over-Teaching" Dilemma in Higher Education

This theoretical review analyzes the global "research-over-teaching" dilemma in higher education. While both are core university missions, a systemic institutional bias toward research threatens educational quality and academic ecosystem health. Existing explanations from educational, sociological, and economic perspectives often divorce structural incentives from individual choices. To bridge this gap, we propose an integrative dual-perspective model that synthesizes rational choice theory with behavioral economics. We argue that the prevailing pattern is not merely an ethical or managerial failure but a co-evolutionary outcome: performance evaluation systems that privilege quantifiable research create a systemic bias, which is then reinforced by faculty cognitive biases and social preferences, locking the system into a self-reinforcing "research-first" equilibrium. This mechanism-based explanation provides a robust theoretical foundation for intervention. Accordingly, we outline pathways for institutional reconstruction to achieve a dynamic balance, including reconfiguring incentives through diversified evaluation, embedding the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), optimizing resource allocation, and employing behavioral nudges.