The Association of University Teachers today came under fire for its decision to strike amid speculation that its mandate will not be strong enough to make action significant.
University employers accused them of running an "unprecedented propaganda campaign" and still failing to secure much more than a third of their members' votes.
Today's ballot result revealed that 54.4% of the union's 47,000 members took part in the postal ballot: 66.6% backed strike action and 81.2% backed action short of a strike. Thus little more than a third of the total union members explicitly supported a strike.
The university employers, the Universities and Colleges Employers' Association (UCEA), claimed that this meant that 95% of the total academic body had not voted for strike action.
Jocelyn Prudence, chief executive of UCEA, said: "We have always been and are still ready to talk to the AUT about how their particular concerns can be addressed in the implementation of the new higher education pay framework.
"Striking, and threatening to refuse to set and mark exams - meaning that thousands of students would not be able to graduate this year - is not the way to resolve this.
"I urge the minority of lecturers who did vote for industrial action to rethink and to look for a constructive resolution - one that does not aim to disrupt students' education."
A spokesman for UCEA added: "We think the AUT must be disappointed that after an unprecedented propaganda campaign and a full month of balloting only 30% have backed the strike. Turnout was only just over 50%."
The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) immediately accused lecturers and students of "opportunism" after it was revealed that the union's favoured action would involve them joining up with the National Union of Student's week of action, which is planned for February 23.
A DfES spokesman said: "It is wrong and opportunistic to link the AUT pay dispute to the bill. Pay remains a matter for higher education institutions and unions.
"Their opposition is also contradictory. The bill will ensure that institutions receive around £1bn in extra funding - this will be of direct benefit to students and will mean that there is more money available for university employees' pay.
"We do hope that progress can still be made to reach an agreement without the need for action which will only affect students and their studies."
Sally Hunt, general secretary of the AUT, responded in a statement to EducationGuardian.co.uk: "The fact that UCEA's spin is that the turnout was low is actually quite laughable. We know, for a fact, that this is what they were telling journalists a full day before anyone - ourselves included - even knew what the results were.
"Compared with other ballot results we are extremely content. Rather than producing such as knee-jerk reaction, UCEA might want to reflect that, actually, this is an overwhelming rejection of their current proposals."
She also defended the union against the DfES's accusations saying: "There is a clear reason to link the assault on academics' pay with the plans for variable top-up fees: while the AUT and NUS will be campaigning against the two issues separately, both packages would lead to the 'marketisation' of higher education.
"There is absolutely no guarantee that the money from variable top-up fees would lead to better pay. History has shown - from previous initiatives such as tuition fees and the Rewarding and Developing staff scheme - that money from such arrangements rarely finds its way into the pay packets of staff."
There is also evidence of a rift between the AUT and other campus unions; the Trades Union Congress has been called in to investigate the deal.
Roger Kline, head of Natfhe's university department, said: "We sympathise with the AUT but we think that the specific issues that they have got are not ones which directly affect new university staff. We will know in a couple of weeks whether we will recommend or reject the final employers' position."
Natfhe mostly represents lecturers in the new universities while AUT members are almost exclusively based in pre-1992 institutions.
