INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Our report begins with a brief review of the roles of American universities and of the University of California. An understanding of these roles is essential for the definition of the "proper work of faculty members" (Academic Personnel Manual (APM), Section 210-1-d) and for measuring faculty performance.

Present concerns need to be placed in their historical context. This University enjoys substantial constitutional autonomy; yet economic, social, and political forces have influenced the interpretation of both the University's mission and the faculty's role in its accomplishment. These external forces and their impact on the work of faculty must be recognized. We urge that the faculty renew its commitment to the institution. We call for reaffirmation of the institution's commitment to matters of important public moment, and for acknowledgement and reward for exceptional faculty involvement in such endeavor in greater and more explicit measure than in the recent past.

This report examines current criteria by which performance is measured and reviews how they are interpreted and implemented in individual faculty personnel actions. However, our findings and recommendations are concerned less with the criteria than with flexibility in their interpretation and application. We conclude that it is both necessary and desirable to be more flexible in interpreting and applying the criteria, both in a single review period and over an entire career path.

Findings and recommendations are presented in full at the end of the report and may be summarized as follows:

  1. Changes in emphases and interests which occur during an academic career are both inevitable and desirable. It is appropriate at all levels of review to exercise flexibility now authorized by University policy in evaluating faculty performance.
  2. Review of faculty teaching and evidence collected to document teaching performance should be broadened. Peer evaluation of teaching should be given the same emphasis now given to peer evaluation of research.
  3. The importance of applied research in the mission of the University should be recognized by encouraging and rewarding for meritorious achievement all faculty who are so engaged, not just those in professional schools.
  4. Research thrusts should be encouraged into new and emerging disciplines and fields of inquiry, particularly those appearing at the interface of established disciplines.
  5. Implementation of diversity- and equity- oriented goals of the University is a shared responsibility among all faculty, and faculty should be encouraged to pursue these activities and be rewarded for meritorious achievement wherever engaged in the "proper work of faculty members."
  6. A review occurring at about the twelfth year of service at the full professor rank should replace the current special Step VI review for Professors. Special criteria now in place for advancement to Step VI should be removed.
  7. Tenured faculty should be permitted, from time to time and with prior campus approval, to emphasize particular areas of professional endeavor consistent with the broad mission of the University and be rewarded for meritorious achievement in these endeavors.
  8. Self-assessment of faculty members' performance in all four areas of activity should be included in each review file.
[UP] Return to "Task Force on Faculty Rewards" Contents