FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We have found the statement of the criteria for evaluating faculty performance to be consistent with the mission of the University. However, current implementation practices on the campuses provide neither sufficient encouragement nor reward for faculty to support fully the broad range of activities called for to fulfill the University's mission.

We have, therefore, proposed changes in the Academic Personnel Manual and in the Salary Scale Notes to encourage flexibility in the application of the criteria. These recommendations are found in the Appendices. We cannot overemphasize and we insist on the importance of implementing the flexibility which is written into University policy. This flexibility needs to be manifested throughout the entire review process beginning at the department and college or school level, moving through the ad hoc review committee to the Committee on Academic Personnel, and ending with the administration. In this connection, we urge that explicit recognition be given to the applicability of the Instructions to Review Committees, Professor Series to all participants in the review process at every level of review.

1. During the past four decades, a shift has occurred away from assessment of intellectual attainment broadly across the four categories of performance, focusing instead on and emphasizing attainment in research defined narrowly as the scholarship of discovery. This finding is supported both by the occurrence of subtle changes in language in the instructions to review committees and by a substantial body of anecdotal evidence of current practice.
   
   Changes to APM 210-1 (as proposed in Appendix 1) are recommended so as to emphasize that, "Superior intellectual attainment, as evidenced both in teaching and in research or other creative achievement, is an indispensable qualification for appointment or promotion to tenure positions."
   
   In particular, we recommend that this APM section add emphasis to the instructions that, "Consideration must be given, however, to changes in emphasis and interest that will naturally occur in an academic career." To underscore this concern, we further recommend deletion of the modifier "reasonable" in describing the flexibility which review committees should use in "balancing heavier commitments and responsibilities in one area against lighter commitments and responsibilities in another."
   
   Finally, we recommend that self-assessment of performance in all four areas of activity be included by faculty in each review file.
   
   
2. While teaching has remained prominent in the formal statement of the criteria, the proper evaluation of and reward for superior intellectual attainment in the realm of teaching, as broadly described in the APM, have been slighted. Documentation and evaluation of meritorious achievement in teaching requires a level of faculty effort well beyond current practice. We urge that peer evaluation of teaching be given the same emphasis now given to peer evaluation of research.
   
   We recommend, therefore, that APM 210-1-d(1) on teaching be amended to require that evidence of teaching effectiveness, in addition to assessment provided by students, be included in all review files. In addition, we recommend that commentary by other faculty on teaching effectiveness be accepted as one example of appropriate evidence of teaching effectiveness which may be presented for any review, not only for reviews involving promotions.
   
   
3. Applied research is a vital aspect of the mission of the University. Faculty whose scholarship focuses on applications of knowledge should be encouraged and rewarded for meritorious achievement. We recommend the current APM language in APM 210-1-d(2) read: "Textbooks, reports, circulars, and similar publications are normally considered evidence of teaching ability or public service. However, contributions by faculty to the professional literature, the advancement of professional practice or of professional education, should be judged creative work when they present new ideas or incorporate scholarly research." The current interpretation of this language tends to discount the scholarship of publications that are expository or applied.
   
   
4. Current practice does not encourage, properly accommodate, nor reward established scholars in the University whose careers manifest shifts in emphasis among research, teaching, professional activities, and service. Nor does it encourage exploration into new and emerging disciplines and fields of inquiry. We recommend, therefore, appropriate additions to the criteria on research, APM 210-1-d(2), which address these concerns.
   
   
5. The development of human resources through personal mentoring and active involvement in affirmative action and other equity-and diversity-oriented pursuits is integral to the life and purpose of the University. As President Gilman stated in 1872, ". . . this is the University of California . . . the University of this state . . .. It opens the door of superior education TO ALL . . .." At no time has this been more important than at present. As the population of the state becomes more diverse, the populations of students and faculty must also become more diverse. Implementation of these and other diversity goals is a shared responsibility among all faculty, and faculty should be encouraged to pursue these activities and be rewarded for meritorious achievement in the areas of equity and diversity wherever engaged in carrying out the "proper work of faculty members."
   
   We recommend, therefore, an addition to the introduction of APM 210-1-d as follows: "Teaching and mentoring of students or new faculty, particularly those of underrepresented groups entering the University community, are to be encouraged and given recognition in academic personnel actions. Such teaching and mentoring are applicable in each area of faculty performance. This is a shared responsibility of all faculty."
   
   
6. We find that the existing special criteria for the Step VI review in the Professor rank, which appear in the Academic Salary Scale Notes (see Appendix 2), function as hurdles that unnecessarily inhibit the recognition of alternative career paths and changing responsibilities. Therefore, we recommend that the special criteria associated with Step VI be eliminated and replaced by the criteria described in APM 210-1-d which would then apply to all appointments and promotions up to the above-scale salary level.
   
   However, we recommend that the concept of a review at the midpoint of the professor rank be retained. Such a review, which would include external evaluation, should occur at or near the twelfth year following promotion to full professor and would coincide with a merit review. The appointment of an ad hoc committee may be requested by either the Committee on Academic Personnel or the Chancellor. The twelve-year review may be omitted for professors who have already been advanced to Step VI or beyond. Faculty currently at Step V who are at or past their twelfth year as a full professor should also be subject to this review before advancement to Step VI. The purpose of the review would be to provide a career appraisal as opposed to the conditions for continued advancement that presently apply.
   
   
7. Given the shifts of emphases and interests in the careers of faculty and given the broad range of institutional needs, we strongly recommend that each campus institute the following option in the academic review process.
   
   Upon formal prior agreement with the department chair, the appropriate departmental peer review agency, and the dean, and for up to two merit review cycles, tenured faculty may emphasize particular areas of professional endeavor and will be judged for advancement based on those activities according to applicable standards of meritorious achievement. Such agreements should reflect faculty interest but must also reflect institutional need. This concentration of commitment could, among other things, include a greater than normal commitment to teaching. However, some activities would be expected to continue in each of the customary areas of evaluation -- teaching, research and other creative work, professional activity, and university and public service.
   
   
8. The Task Force fervently urges those responsible for the academic personnel process at each of our campuses to contemplate additional ways that the principles set forth in our report may be enhanced in the varied circumstances that prevail.

Return to "Task Force on Faculty Rewards" Contents