Our report would be incomplete without comment on factors responsible for influencing the way in which faculty members allocate their time among the various areas of scholarly activity.
Foremost in the minds of faculty (beyond that which is self-imposed) is the pressure to be a productive scholar in the sense of discoverer and reporter of new knowledge -- that pressure which is captured in the popular expression "publish or perish." Sources of this pressure are funding agencies, publishers of journals, universities themselves, and faculty qua faculty. A vicious circle arises. Funding agencies, operating with limited resources, offer the carrot of funding on a competitive basis. Faculty respondents build their cases for funds before their peers, who make value judgments largely based upon evidence of intellectual capacity reflected in published papers. Publishers, motivated by economics and prestige, have proliferated the number of journals, which in turn require new manuscripts. Research universities and -- in increasing numbers -- institutions wishing to become research universities frequently expect or require their faculty members to offset their academic year salary in part from extramural sources. Buying off teaching obligations with research dollars is an increasingly pervasive practice in many institutions.
Faculty caught up in this system have generally gone along with it. They have contributed to the exaggerated credit assigned to the scholarship of discovery at the expense of the scholarship of integration, application, and teaching -- little of which carries the financial consequence or peer recognition of sponsored research.
Nor does this narrowing of focus of faculty activity affect only the conduct of research. As already noted, a direct concomitant has been the shift in faculty allegiance toward geographically dispersed, discipline-defined peers and away from college or school and home institution. This phenomenon was quantified in the 1989 Faculty Survey in which 75 percent of the faculty at research institutions rated the sense of community at their institutions as fair or poor. Disciplinary power has diminished commitment to the University, as researchers look horizontally for recognition, impact, and stimulation. In turn, universities have contributed to the process by emphasizing peer evaluation and departmental rankings at a time when increasing specialization prevails.
Achievement has been rewarded for those whose research performance before national and international audiences has been judged exemplary. Institutional reward has increased in the recent past as a consequence of extra-institutional contribution, engagement, and recognition. At the same time, contributions to more immediate institutional concerns -- whether to teaching in its various forms, attending to institutional development, or applying knowledge with salutary social effect have received less acknowledgement and reward. It is our judgement that the University must reaffirm its claim to faculty obligation in teaching, institutional engagement, and commitment to other matters of important institutional need. Further, we contend that the University should reward meritorious achievement in these endeavors essential to the attainment of its mission.
The consequences of narrowing the focus of scholarly activity on the scholarship of discovery at the expense of teaching, integration, and application of knowledge are twofold: The broad mission of the University is unevenly supported by its faculty while, at the same time, the evolution of the career paths of individual faculty is likely to be impaired. The evidence for this is strong, particularly among junior faculty who find insufficient time and little encouragement to engage fully in the scholarship of teaching and in University and public service. Habits gained at the beginning of a faculty career are not easily changed -- witness the relatively low level of the senior faculty's participation in shared governance at the level of the college, school, or campus. Finally, if the scholarship of teaching is to be restored to its proper place, it follows directly that peer evaluation of teaching must be pursued with the same level of enthusiasm and dedication now afforded peer evaluation of research.
Ironically, it seems clear that many members of the faculty have been attracted to an academic career by an interest in teaching.
Furthermore, there persists a widespread belief that, unlike published research, superior intellectual attainment evidenced in teaching is difficult to document. It is the view of the Task Force that present emphasis on scholarship of discovery (research) and failure to give sufficient weight to "other creative achievement" makes this belief a self-fulfilling prophecy. Proper recognition of teaching at all levels and under all forms, including mentoring of students and junior colleagues, requires a conscious change in the culture, reinforced by the faculty reward system. Current practices in the University vary widely among departments and campuses. Documentation of superior intellectual attainment in teaching is time-consuming, requiring self-assessment, peer-assessment, and assessment by students. We recognize the need to improve assessment of performance in the realm of teaching and call for the faculty to engage itself with this issue. We are aware of proposals for strengthening the reward structure for superior performance in teaching and scholarly service that are currently under discussion on several campuses of the University. Every encouragement should be given to such initiatives designed to foster the requisite flexibility.
Powerful arguments support the status quo in both the content and the implementation of the current criteria by which appointment and promotion decisions for faculty are being made. Superior intellectual attainment in teaching and research has constituted the basis for measuring faculty performance for at least the last four decades. Insistence on clear evidence of superior intellectual attainment has indeed served the University well in many, but not all, respects.
Yet, we are obliged to conclude that there is an urgent need to engage the faculty and the administration in a reaffirmation of the validity of the criteria and, more critically, to join in making a fresh commitment to a balanced weighting of their relative importance in the overall assessment of faculty performance. The consequences of such action are far from trivial. The faculty of the University will have to demonstrate a renewed commitment of time and effort to the principles of shared governance and a corresponding exercise of academic citizenship that is not now evident in the daily life of the campuses of our University. While the price may be considered too high by some, the consequence of not acting at this time is to jeopardize the University's ability to sustain its mission.
![[UP]](../up.gif)
Return to "Task Force on Faculty Rewards" Contents