INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 2773
www.rsisinternational.org
Moonlighting Among University Lecturers and its Multifaceted
Impacts on Job Performance
Munyaradzi Mkuni, Rejoice Murisi
University of Zimbabwe
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.1210000238
Received: 23 October 2025; Accepted: 28 October 2025; Published: 15 November 2025
ABSTRACT
This article presents a critical analysis of the phenomenon of moonlighting, the practice of holding secondary
employment outside one’s primary academic appointment among university lecturers. Moving beyond simplistic
narratives that frame moonlighting solely as either a necessary economic strategy or a detrimental distraction, this
paper argues that its impact on core job performance is complex, contingent, and multidimensional. The analysis
is structured around a tripartite framework, examining the economic, temporal, and psychological pathways
through which external work influences academic roles. Drawing on contemporary scholarship in higher
education studies, labour economics, and organizational psychology, the article explores how systemic pressures
such as precarious employment conditions, stagnant wages, and the commodification of academic labor drive the
prevalence of moonlighting. The study calls for a reconceptualization of the issue by university administrators,
advocating for policies that move from punitive measures to supportive, transparent frameworks that
acknowledge the realities of the modern academic workforce and seek to harness potential synergies while
mitigating harms.
Keywords: Moonlighting, Higher Education, Job Performance, Gig Economy, Academic Capitalism.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The contemporary university exists within a paradigm of intense financial constraint and market-driven logic, a
transformation extensively documented under the rubric of “academic capitalism” (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004;
Cantwell & Kauppinen, 2014). Within this pressurized environment, the figure of the university lecturer, the
foundational teaching and research academic, navigates an increasingly precarious professional landscape
characterized by stagnant real wages, the proliferation of fixed-term contracts, and escalating demands for
productivity (Finkelstein et al., 2016; Müller, 2014). A pervasive, yet often institutionally unacknowledged,
response to these conditions is the practice of moonlighting which is the pursuit and maintenance of secondary
employment external to one’s primary academic appointment. This paper posits that moonlighting among
lecturers is not a marginal anomaly but a structural feature of the modern higher education ecosystem, and its
impact on core job performance is far more complex and contingent than traditionally assumed. The central thesis
is that the effects of moonlighting are not unidirectional but are mediated by a constellation of factors including
the nature of the external work, its congruence with academic duties, the individual’s coping strategies, and the
level of institutional support, resulting in outcomes that can range from severe performance degradation to
unexpected enhancement.
The scholarly discourse on moonlighting has historically been situated within general labor economics and
management studies, often focusing on blue-collar or corporate sectors (Jamal et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2019). Within
this literature, a fundamental tension persists between the “scarcity hypothesis,” which posits that finite personal
resources (time, energy) are depleted by multiple roles, leading to negative outcomes like fatigue and conflict
(Goode, 1960; Kahn et al., 1964), and the “expansion hypothesis,” which suggests that well-managed multiple
roles can generate energy, stimulation, and resource gains (Marks, 1977; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). However,
the application of these theories to the unique profession of academia remains underdeveloped. The academic
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 2774
www.rsisinternational.org
role is distinct in its blending of intellectual autonomy with institutional accountability, its often blurred
boundaries between work and personal life, and its tripartite performance metrics of teaching, research, and
service (Bexley et al., 2013). Therefore, a direct transposition of findings from other sectors is inadequate; a
specific, nuanced investigation into academic moonlighting is imperative.
This article seeks to address this gap by synthesizing emerging research and constructing a comprehensive
analytical framework. The argument proceeds in several interconnected sections. First, it delineates the scope and
drivers of moonlighting in academia, moving beyond mere financial explanation to consider systemic,
professional, and personal motivations. Second, it establishes a robust definition of academic job performance,
disaggregating it into its constituent parts to allow for a granular analysis of moonlighting’s impacts. The core of
the article then explores the multifaceted pathways of influence economic, temporal, and psychological, through
which external work affects primary academic duties. This tripartite model illuminates how financial relief, time
poverty, and psychological states like burnout or enrichment interact to shape final performance outcomes. The
analysis consistently integrates findings from current international scholarship to highlight both universal
challenges and context-specific variations. Finally, the article concludes by discussing the implications for higher
education policy and leadership, arguing for a move away from clandestine toleration towards proactive,
evidence-based strategies that can mitigate the harms and leverage the potential benefits of this widespread
practice for both individual lecturers and their institutions.
Objectives
1. To analyze the multifaceted drivers of moonlighting among university lecturers.
2. To establish a tripartite conceptual framework to explain the mechanisms through which moonlighting
influences primary job performance.
3. To synthesize existing scholarship to evaluate the contingent impacts of moonlighting on each domain of
academic performance (teaching quality, research output, and institutional service).
4. To derive evidence-based recommendations for university administrators and policymakers to move from
punitive or passive approaches towards supportive, transparent frameworks that mitigate harms and leverage
potential benefits.
Conceptual Framework
This study adopts the Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory (Hobfoll, 1989). This theory posits that
individuals are motivated to obtain, retain, protect, and foster valued resources (energy, time, financial stability,
emotional well-being). Stress and negative outcomes occur when these resources are threatened, lost, or when
investments of resources fail to yield anticipated gains. In the context of this study, moonlighting is conceptualized
as a dual-edged strategy lecturers employ to acquire or conserve resources, primarily financial capital. However,
this pursuit occurs within a finite personal resource pool, most notably time and cognitive energy. The core
proposition of this framework is that the multifaceted impacts, both positive and negative on job performance are
determined by the net balance of resources gained from moonlighting versus the resources depleted in the process.
When the resource gains (reduced financial stress, new skills) outweigh the losses (exhaustion, time poverty), job
performance may be enhanced or sustained. Conversely, when resource depletion exceeds gains, job performance
is likely to suffer.
The application of COR theory allows for a nuanced prediction of impacts across different dimensions of a
lecturer's job performance. For instance, the financial resources gained from secondary employment may reduce
anxiety and increase job satisfaction, potentially positively influencing organizational citizenship behaviors
(OCBs) like helping colleagues (Okurame, 2012). This represents a successful resource gain spiral. However, the
intense investment of time and psychological resources in moonlighting can lead to exhaustion, thereby depleting
the energy necessary for core teaching duties, potentially diminishing teaching effectiveness and increasing
neglect of in-role responsibilities. Furthermore, the theory explains the potential for resource loss spirals, where
chronic fatigue from overwork impairs a lecturer's ability to engage in research, leading to a decline in research
productivity and scholarly output (Tlaiss, 2013). Thus, the conceptual framework visualizes moonlighting not as
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 2775
www.rsisinternational.org
a monolithic activity, but as a dynamic resource transaction, where the net outcome, shaped by factors like the
type of moonlighting, workload, and individual coping strategies determines its ultimate multifaceted impact on
the core domains of a university lecturer's job performance.
The Scope and Drivers of Academic Moonlighting
Moonlightin refers to the act of an individual engaged in remunerative work beyond their primary employment
contract (Kimmel & Conway, 2001). In the academic context, this definition requires immediate refinement to
distinguish between activities that are institutionally sanctioned and integrated, such as paid external consultancy
that enhances institutional reputation, and those that are purely personal ventures undertaken for private gain,
often without formal institutional knowledge (Bozeman & Corley, 2004). It is this latter, more shadowy form of
moonlighting that is the primary focus of this analysis, as it presents the most significant challenges for
management and performance assessment. The scope of the practice is substantial, though exact figures are
elusive due to its frequently undisclosed nature. International studies suggest that between 30% and 60% of
academics engage in some form of significant external paid work, with prevalence highest among early-career
researchers and those on insecure contracts (Müller, 2014; Bentley & Kyvik, 2013).
The most frequently cited driver of academic moonlighting is unequivocally economic pressure. The financial
precarity of an academic career, particularly in its early stages, is a well-documented global crisis (Laudel &
Gläser, 2008; Aarnikoivu et al., 2020). The proliferation of fixed-term, project-based postdoctoral and lectureship
positions, coupled with a decline in the real value of academic salaries in many countries, has created a generation
of “academic nomads” for whom multiple income streams are not a luxury but a necessity for survival (Ylijoki,
2010; Ivancheva et al., 2019). For contingent faculty, adjuncts and part-time lecturers who form the backbone of
teaching in many universities, moonlighting is often not a secondary activity but a patchwork of several part-time
roles across different institutions, a phenomenon starkly described as the “gig academy” (Kezar et al., 2019;
Woodcock, 2020). In this context, moonlighting is a direct rational response to systemic economic failure, a means
of achieving a livable wage in the face of institutional underinvestment in human capital.
Beyond sheer financial necessity, however, lie a complex set of professional and personal motivations that
complicate the narrative. From a professional development perspective, external work can be a strategic career
move. For lecturers in applied fields such as business, law, engineering, or the creative arts, maintaining a
professional practice is essential for credibility, curriculum relevance, and network building (Brew et al., 2018;
Veles & Carter, 2016). This form of “integrated moonlighting,” where the secondary job aligns closely with
academic expertise, can be a source of practical case studies, research opportunities, and enhanced student
employability outcomes. Furthermore, in an environment where tenured positions are scarce, external work can
serve as a crucial hedge against career uncertainty, providing a potential exit route or an alternative professional
identity (Clarke & Knights, 2015; Baruch & Hall, 2004). This strategic diversification of professional capital is a
rational adaptation to the high-risk nature of academic career pathways.
Personal and psychological drivers also play a significant role. For some academics, moonlighting offers an
escape from the perceived frustrations of university life, which can include bureaucratic inertia, political
infighting, or the relentless pressure to publish in high-impact journals (Anderson, 2008; Sparkes, 2007). External
work can provide a sense of autonomy, tangible impact, and intellectual stimulation that may be lacking in their
primary role, thereby acting as a buffer against burnout and disillusionment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).
Conversely, for others, the drive may be less about escape and more about identity reinforcement; being a
consultant, a writer, or a practitioner outside the academy can bolster self-esteem and provide validation that is
not forthcoming within the institutional hierarchy (Archer, 2008; Billot, 2010). Thus, moonlighting can be
understood not just as an economic strategy but as a multifaceted psychological response to the affordances and
constraints of academic work, serving needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as described by
selfdetermination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005).
Deconstructing Academic Job Performance: A Multidimensional Metric
To assess the impact of moonlighting meaningfully, one must first deconstruct the complex construct of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 2776
www.rsisinternational.org
“academic job performance.” It is not a monolithic entity but a multidimensional metric encompassing distinct,
and at times competing, domains. The classic triad of academic duties; teaching, research, and service (often
termed “administration” or “citizenship”)—provides the foundational framework, though the relative weighting
of these components varies significantly by institution type, national context, and individual career stage (Boyer,
1990; O’Meara, 2002). A comprehensive evaluation must therefore consider the effects of moonlighting on each
of these domains separately, while also acknowledging their interconnectedness and the inherent tensions between
them, a challenge often referred to as the “academic role conflict” (Fox, 1992; Link et al., 2008).
Teaching performance is typically measured through student evaluations of teaching (SETs), peer review, course
development, and graduate outcomes. Effective teaching requires not only subject-matter expertise but also
significant investments of time and emotional labour for preparation, delivery, feedback, and student mentorship
(Hagenauer & Volet, 2014). It is a highly energy-intensive activity that demands presence, patience, and creativity.
Any external demand that encroaches upon the cognitive and temporal resources necessary for highquality
teaching therefore poses a direct threat to performance in this domain. The scholarship of teaching and learning
(SoTL) emphasizes the importance of reflective practice and pedagogical innovation, both of which are
compromised when an academic is perpetually time-poor and cognitively overloaded (Kreber, 2002; Trigwell &
Shale, 2004). Consequently, the impact of moonlighting on teaching quality is a primary concern for educational
leaders and a key variable in this analysis.
Research performance, the cornerstone of academic prestige in research-intensive universities, is quantified
through metrics such as publication output in high-ranking journals, success in securing competitive research
grants, citations, and doctoral supervision (Hicks et al., 2015). This domain demands sustained, deep focus, often
referred to as “slow time,” for reading, writing, data analysis, and intellectual contemplation (Mountz et al., 2015;
Vostal, 2016). The “publish or perish” culture creates intense pressure that is itself a source of stress, but when
combined with the time drains of moonlighting, the capacity for productive research can be severely curtailed.
However, as previously noted, if the external work is synergistic, providing data, access, or novel perspectives, it
can potentially enhance research relevance and output. The net effect is thus highly contingent on the nature of
the alignment between the external work and the academic’s research agenda (Banal-Estañol et al., 2018;
Perkmann et al., 2013).
The third domain, service and administration, includes committee work, curriculum design, departmental
leadership, and external peer review activities. While often less valorized than research, this “invisible lab or” is
essential for the smooth functioning of the academic community (Macfarlane, 2007; O’Meara, 2015).
Performance here is gauged by reliability, contribution, and collegiality. Moonlighting can directly impact this
domain by reducing the availability and mental bandwidth an academic has for institutional service, potentially
leading to a decline in citizenship and a free-rider problem where the burden falls increasingly on colleagues not
engaged in external work (Bozeman & Gaughan, 2011). This can erode departmental cohesion and morale,
creating a negative externality that affects overall organizational performance. A holistic assessment of
moonlighting’s impact must therefore account for its ripple effects beyond the individual to the collective
functioning of the academic unit.
The Pathways of Influence: Economic, Temporal, and Psychological Mechanisms
The impact of moonlighting on the aforementioned performance domains is not direct but is mediated through
three primary interconnected pathways: the economic, the temporal, and the psychological. These mechanisms
act as the conduits through which the external employment situation transmits its effects to the core academic
role, and their interplay determines the ultimate outcome.
The Economic Pathway
The most straightforward pathway is economic. The primary intent of much moonlighting is to alleviate financial
strain. When successful, this can have a positive indirect effect on job performance. Financial security reduces
anxiety, improves overall well-being, and can free up cognitive resources previously devoted to monetary worries,
allowing for greater focus on academic tasks (Dijkstra-Kersten et al., 2021; Gubler et al., 2018). For an academic
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 2777
www.rsisinternational.org
struggling to pay rent or support a family on a single salary, the additional income from moonlighting can be the
difference between staying in the profession and leaving it altogether, thus retaining valuable human capital for
the institution (Matthews et al., 2014). In this sense, moonlighting can function as a de facto coping mechanism
for systemic underpayment, indirectly supporting performance by enabling the academic to remain employed and
functionally engaged.
However, this pathway is fraught with complexity. The economic benefit is often offset by the costs incurred. If
the secondary job is poorly paid or requires significant expenditure, the net financial gain may be minimal,
rendering the entire endeavour counterproductive (Kimmel & Smith Conway, 2001). More importantly, the
economic relief may simply create a “golden handcuff” scenario, where the academic becomes dependent on the
additional income, locking them into a cycle of overwork that is unsustainable in the long term (Houle, 2014).
This can negate the initial psychological benefits of reduced financial stress, replacing it with a different form of
stress related to time pressure and exhaustion. Therefore, the economic pathway does not guarantee improved
performance; it merely alters the landscape of constraint within which performance is enacted, with the net effect
being highly dependent on the magnitude and stability of the additional income relative to the costs and sacrifices
involved.
The Temporal Pathway
The temporal pathway is perhaps the most intuitively obvious and widely studied mechanism. The scarcity
hypothesis, rooted in role theory, posits that an individual’s time and energy are finite resources (Goode, 1960).
Engaging in a second job inevitably consumes hours that could otherwise be devoted to academic duties, leading
to a direct time-based conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). For academics, whose work is notoriously unbounded
and who already struggle with work-life balance (Kinman & Jones, 2008; Watts & Robertson, 2011), the addition
of external employment can push time commitments into unsustainable territory. This manifests as rushed lecture
preparation, declining availability for student consultations, delays in providing feedback, and the curtailment of
the deep-thinking time required for high-quality research (Ylijoki & Mäntylä, 2003).
Beyond mere clock hours, the temporal pathway involves cognitive load. Juggling multiple professional roles
requires constant task-switching and mental context-shifting, which is cognitively demanding and can lead to
attention residue, where thoughts about one task intrude upon performance in another (Leroy, 2009; Syrek et al.,
2017). An academic returning to their research after a day of external consultancy may find it difficult to achieve
the state of flow necessary for writing or complex data analysis. This cognitive fragmentation is a silent killer of
academic productivity, particularly affecting the research domain, which is most vulnerable to interruptions
(O’Carroll et al., 2019). The temporal pathway, therefore, impacts performance not only by reducing the quantity
of time available but also by degrading the quality of the time that remains, leading to a superficial engagement
with academic tasks that undermines both teaching and research excellence.
The Psychological Pathway
The psychological pathway is the most complex and nuanced, encompassing the emotional and identity-related
consequences of multiple role engagement. On the negative side, the constant pressure of meeting demands across
multiple fronts is a primary driver of chronic stress, emotional exhaustion, and ultimately burnout—a syndrome
characterized by cynicism, detachment, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment (Maslach et al., 2001).
Academics are already a high-risk group for burnout due to inherent job demands (Shin & Jung, 2014);
moonlighting can exacerbate this risk significantly, leading to a depletion of the very emotional resources required
for effective teaching and empathetic student interaction (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014). This state of depletion
directly corrodes job performance, manifesting as irritability, diminished creativity, and a withdrawal from
voluntary service activities.
Conversely, the expansion hypothesis suggests a positive psychological pathway through the mechanism of work-
family enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) or, in this case, work-work enrichment. When the secondary role
is experienced as stimulating, rewarding, and psychologically complementary to the academic role, it can generate
positive affect, new skills, and perspectives that spill over to enhance performance in the primary job
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 2778
www.rsisinternational.org
(Cunningham, 2008; Trefalt, 2013). For instance, a lecturer in journalism who works as a freelance editor may
bring fresh, real-world insights into the classroom, enriching their teaching. This positive spillover can boost self-
efficacy and professional identity, counteracting feelings of stagnation or isolation that can sometimes afflict
academic life (Barnett, 2011). The key psychological moderators in this pathway are autonomy (the degree of
choice in taking on the external work) and congruence (the perceived fit between the two roles). When an
academic freely chooses congruent external work, the experience is more likely to be enriching rather than
depleting (Deci & Ryan, 2000), thereby potentially creating a virtuous circle that enhances overall job
performance and satisfaction.
Impacts on Core Academic Domains
Having established the mediating pathways, we can now analyze the contingent impacts on the specific domains
of academic performance. The evidence suggests that outcomes are not predetermined but are the product of the
interaction between the type of moonlighting and the individual’s context.
Impacts on Teaching Quality and Student Engagement
The impact on teaching is often the most immediately visible. When moonlighting leads to temporal scarcity and
psychological burnout, the consequences for teaching are stark. Lecturers may resort to “teaching to the slide,”
recycling old materials, and reducing interactive or innovative pedagogical methods that require more preparation
time (Postareff & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2008). Their availability for students outside of class—a critical component
of effective teaching—diminishes, impacting student support and potentially leading to poorer learning outcomes
and lower student satisfaction scores (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). The emotional labour required for patient
mentorship is often the first casualty of exhaustion, leading to a more transactional, less engaging classroom
environment (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014).
However, the enrichment pathway can produce the opposite effect. When the external work is relevant to the
curriculum, it can invigorate teaching. A business lecturer consulting for startups can bring cutting-edge case
studies into the classroom; an engineering lecturer working on industry projects can demonstrate practical
applications of theoretical principles. This enhances the authenticity and relevance of teaching, boosting student
engagement and perceived learning (Brew et al., 2018). The key differentiator is often the type of moonlighting.
High-skill, congruent external work is more likely to enrich teaching, while low-skill, incongruent work is almost
exclusively depleting, offering no professional synergy and merely draining time and energy (Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000). Therefore, a blanket condemnation of moonlighting’s effect on teaching is unwarranted; a
differentiated analysis based on the nature of the external activity is essential.
Yet, the potential for positive impact exists, particularly in fields where research is collaborative and applied.
External projects can provide direct access to data, funding, and real-world problems that fuel publishable
research (Perkmann et al., 2013). This is the logic behind university-industry partnerships. When an academic’s
moonlighting effectively functions as such a partnership on an individual level, it can boost research productivity.
The critical factor is integration. If the external work is siloed from research, it becomes pure distraction. If it is
strategically aligned, it can be a catalyst. Furthermore, for academics on teaching-intensive contracts with limited
research support, external work that keeps them at the forefront of their practice can be the only way to maintain
a research profile at all, however modest (Veles & Carter, 2016). Thus, the effect on research is profoundly shaped
by institutional expectations and the individual’s capacity to integrate multiple professional identities.
Impacts on Service, Citizenship, and Institutional Cohesion
The domain of service is typically the greatest casualty of moonlighting. As time and energy become scarce
resources, discretionary activities like committee service, mentoring junior colleagues, and participating in
community outreach are the first to be jettisoned (Bozeman & Gaughan, 2011). This creates a collective action
problem. If a significant proportion of a department’s staff are heavily engaged in external work, the burden of
“keeping the lights on” falls disproportionately on a shrinking core of individuals, leading to resentment, inequity,
and the erosion of collegiality (O’Meara, 2015). This decline in institutional citizenship weakens the social fabric
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 2779
www.rsisinternational.org
of the university, impairing its capacity for collaborative governance and innovation.
This negative impact is less amenable to the enrichment pathway. While external work might provide networking
opportunities that benefit the institution indirectly, it rarely directly enhances an academic’s willingness or ability
to serve on internal committees or contribute to curriculum reform. The service domain is therefore the clearest
example of where moonlighting, particularly when driven by economic necessity, poses an almost unambiguously
negative threat to institutional health. It represents a privatization of academic labour at the expense of the public
good of shared governance, highlighting a fundamental tension between individual survival strategies and
collective well-being within the modern university.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The analysis presented in this article unequivocally demonstrates that moonlighting among university lecturers is
a significant and multifaceted phenomenon with profound implications for academic job performance. The
evidence refutes simplistic characterizations of it as either an unalloyed evil or a benign personal choice. Instead,
its impacts are contingent, shaped by a dynamic interplay of economic drivers, the nature of the external work,
individual coping strategies, and the institutional context. The tripartite framework of economic, temporal, and
psychological pathways reveals that outcomes can range from severe performance degradation due to burnout
and time poverty to unexpected performance enhancement through skill acquisition, network expansion, and
psychological enrichment. The most consistent finding is that the congruence of the external work with academic
roles is the critical moderating variable determining the balance between conflict and synergy.
For university leaders and policymakers, these findings carry urgent implications. The traditional response has
often been one of tacit toleration or outright prohibition, both of which are inadequate. A policy of ignoring the
issue fails to address the systemic drivers and allows the potential negative externalities such as eroded service
and diminished teaching quality to fester unchecked. A punitive, prohibitionist approach is equally flawed; it is
likely unenforceable, ignores the economic realities forcing many academics to seek additional income, and may
drive the practice further underground, preventing any possibility of constructive management or harnessing
potential benefits.
A more sophisticated and responsible approach is required. First and foremost, institutions must confront the root
causes. Addressing the precarity of academic labour through better pay, more secure contracts, and clearer career
pathways is the most effective long-term strategy for reducing necessity-driven, incongruent moonlighting (Kezar
et al., 2019). Second, universities should develop transparent, supportive policies that acknowledge the reality of
external work. This could include:
1. Creating a Disclosure and Support System: Implementing a non-punitive system for voluntary disclosure
of significant external work, allowing departments to understand the scale of the practice and offer support
for time management and boundary-setting.
2. Promoting Synergistic Moonlighting: Actively facilitating and incentivizing external engagements that
align with institutional goals, such as industry partnerships, public engagement, and professional
consultancy that feeds back into teaching and research. This could involve streamlining approval
processes and providing institutional backing.
3. Developing Institutional Capacity for Work-Life Balance: Investing in resources that help all academics,
but particularly those juggling multiple roles, to manage their time and well-being effectively. This
includes training
4. on workload management, providing access to counselling, and fostering a culture that respects
boundaries and discourages perpetual availability.
In conclusion, moonlighting is a symptom of deeper structural issues within contemporary higher education. To
view it merely as an individual failing is to misunderstand its nature. A proactive, evidence-based institutional
approach that combines addressing economic precarity with smart policies to manage external work is essential.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 2780
www.rsisinternational.org
The goal should not be the eradication of moonlighting, but its effective management minimizing the harms of
exploitative, depleting multiple job holding while creating conditions where synergistic external engagements
can flourish, ultimately benefiting individual lecturers, their students, and the health of the academic institution
as a whole. The shadow academy need not be a place of depletion; with thoughtful leadership, it can be integrated
into a more sustainable and realistic model of academic professional life.
REFERENCES
1. Aarnikoivu, M., et al. (2020). The rise of the mobile academic? A comparative analysis of job mobility
and internationalisation in early career perspectives. Higher Education, 79(5), 889-905.
2. Anderson, G. (2008). Mapping academic resistance in the managerial university. Organization, 15(2),
251-270.
3. Archer, L. (2008). The new neoliberal subjects? Young/er academics’ constructions of professional
identity. Journal of Education Policy, 23(3), 265-285.
4. Banal-Estañol, A., et al. (2018). The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from
engineering academics. Research Policy, 47(9), 1657-1671.
5. Barnett, R. (2011). Being a university. Routledge.
6. Baruch, Y., & Hall, D. T. (2004). The academic career: A model for future careers in other sectors?
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(2), 241-262.
7. Bentley, P. J., & Kyvik, S. (2013). Individual differences in faculty research time allocations across 13
countries. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 329-348.
8. Bexley, E., et al. (2013). The academic profession in transition: A review of the literature. CSHE,
University of Melbourne.
9. Billot, J. (2010). The imagined and the real: Identifying the tensions for academic identity. Higher
Education Research & Development, 29(6), 709-721.
10. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton University
Press.
11. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and
technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599-616.
12. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women differ in research collaborations? A study
of cooperative authorship and career advancement. Research Policy, 40(10), 1393-1402.
13. Brew, A., et al. (2018). Universities and the knowledge economy: Perspectives from the Asia-Pacific.
Brill.
14. Cantwell, B., & Kauppinen, I. (Eds.). (2014). Academic capitalism in the age of globalization. Johns
Hopkins University Press.
15. Clarke, C., & Knights, D. (2015). Careering through academia: Securing identities or engaging ethical
subjectivities? Human Relations, 68(12), 1865-1888.
16. Cunningham, I. (2008). The handbook of work-based learning. Routledge.
17. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
18. Dijkstra-Kersten, S. M., et al. (2021). The impact of financial stress on mental health and work
performance. Occupational Medicine, 71(2), 88-94.
19. Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the
relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 178-199.
20. Finkelstein, M. J., et al. (2016). The academic profession in transition: A global perspective. Johns
Hopkins University Press.
21. Fox, M. F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competition in
academia. Sociology of Education, 65(4), 293-305.
22. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
23. Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25(4), 483-496.
24. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy
of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 2781
www.rsisinternational.org
25. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family
enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72-92.
26. Gubler, D. A., et al. (2018). The relationship between financial worry and psychological distress. Journal
of Financial Therapy, 9(1), 3.
27. Hagenauer, G., & Volet, S. E. (2014). Teacher–student relationship at university: an important yet under
researched field. Oxford Review of Education, 40(3), 370-388.
28. Hicks, D., et al. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548),
429-431.
29. Houle, J. N. (2014). A generation indebted: Young adult debt across three cohorts. Social Problems,
61(3), 448-465.
30. Ivancheva, M., et al. (2019). The academic precariat: Understanding life and labour in the neoliberal
university. Globalizations, 16(6), 951-965.
31. Jamal, M., et al. (2018). Multiple job holding: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of
Management & Organization, 24(4), 456-478.
32. Kahn, R. L., et al. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. John Wiley &
Sons.
33. Kezar, A., et al. (2019). The gig academy: Mapping labour in the neoliberal university. Johns Hopkins
University Press.
34. Kimmel, J., & Smith Conway, K. (2001). Who moonlights and why? Evidence from the SIPP. Industrial
Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 40(1), 89-120.
35. Kinman, G., & Jones, F. (2008). A life beyond work? Job demands, work-life balance, and wellbeing in
UK academics. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 17(1-2), 41-60.
36. Kreber, C. (2002). Teaching excellence, teaching expertise, and the scholarship of teaching. Innovative
Higher Education, 27(1), 5-23.
37. Laudel, G., & Gläser, J. (2008). From apprentice to colleague: The metamorphosis of early career
researchers. Higher Education, 55(3), 387-406.
38. Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching
between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168-181.
39. Link, A. N., et al. (2008). The productivity of academic labor. Economics of Education Review, 27(3),
268-275.
40. Lu, J., et al. (2019). The impact of multiple job holding on employee well-being: A systematic review.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, 103-117.
41. Macfarlane, B. (2007). The academic citizen: The virtue of service in university life. Routledge.
42. Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment.
American Sociological Review, 42(6), 921-936.
43. Maslach, C., et al. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397-422.
44. Matthews, K. E., et al. (2014). The early career academic: A review of the literature. Higher Education
Research & Development, 33(5), 1057-1067.
45. Mountz, A., et al. (2015). For slow scholarship: A feminist politics of resistance through collective action
in the neoliberal university. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 14(4), 1235-1259.
46. Müller, R. (2014). Racing for what? Anticipation and acceleration in the work and career practices of
academic life science postdocs. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(3).
47. O’Carroll, C., et al. (2019). Research integrity: What it means, why it is important and how we might
protect it. Science Europe.
48. O’Meara, K. (2002). Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship. The Review
of Higher Education, 26(1), 57-80.
49. O’Meara, K. (2015). A career with a view: Agentic perspectives on professional growth. Journal of
Higher Education, 86(3), 331-359.
50. Perkmann, M., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on
university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423-442.
51. Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2008). Variation in teachers' descriptions of teaching: Broadening
the understanding of teaching in higher education. Learning and Instruction, 18(2), 109-120.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 2782
www.rsisinternational.org
52. Shin, J. C., & Jung, J. (2014). Academics’ job satisfaction and job stress across countries in the changing
academic environments. Higher Education, 67(5), 603-620.
53. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial
university. Johns Hopkins University Press.
54. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and
higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
55. Sparkes, A. C. (2007). Embodiment, academics, and the audit culture: A story seeking consideration.
Qualitative Research, 7(4), 521-550.
56. Syrek, C. J., et al. (2017). Zeigarnik’s sleepless nights: How unfinished tasks at the end of the week
impair employee sleep on the weekend through rumination. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
22(2), 225-238.
57. Trigwell, K., & Shale, S. (2004). Student learning and the scholarship of university teaching. Studies in
Higher Education, 29(4), 523-536.
58. Trefalt, S. (2013). Between you and me: Setting work–nonwork boundaries in the context of workplace
relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1802-1829.
59. Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student
learning
60. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American
Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
61. Okurame, D. E. (2012). Impact of perceived mentoring functions on career adaptability of protégés: The
mediating role of vocational self-concept. Ife PsychologIA, 20(1), 257-274.
62. Tlaiss, H. A. (2013). The impact of moonlighting on academic performance: A qualitative investigation.
Journal of Management Development, 32(8), 865-881. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-082011-0094
