The Academic Personnel Manual of the University sets forth in Section 210, Appointment and Promotion, Review and Appraisal Committees, instructions to review committees which advise on actions concerning appointees in the Professor and corresponding series. The crucial sentence in Section 210-1-d states:
The review committee shall judge the candidate with respect to the proposed rank and duties, considering the record of the candidate's performance in (1) teaching, (2) research and other creative work, (3) professional activity, and (4) University and public service.
The University's four determinants may be compared with the terminology suggested by Boyer, who poses and answers the following question:
Is it possible to define the work of faculty in ways that reflect more realistically the full range of academic and civic mandates?
His response is that the work of the professoriate might be conceived as having four separate, yet overlapping functions. These are the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of teaching.
In daily discourse, the term "scholarship of discovery" is typically equated to "research." The search for new knowledge will unquestionably continue to be at the core of the University's mission. Yet, Boyer contends:
There is need for scholars to work at making connections across the disciplines, placing specialties in larger context, illuminating data in a revealing way, often educating nonspecialists, too.
This, he calls "scholarship of integration."
"Scholarship of application" is embodied in the work of faculty members that flows directly from their professional knowledge. It may be, but is not limited to, the innovative practice of a profession; it may be the application of knowledge to a consequential social problem. In every instance, the same measures of rigor and accountability, as applied to the scholarship of discovery, are required.
The "scholarship of teaching" moves well beyond the commonly accepted notion of the teacher as a classroom performer, or as a tutor of a single individual, for the mere transmission of knowledge. Teaching incorporates these activities but is concerned more broadly with the synthesis and extension of knowledge, i.e., the transformation of knowledge. It is self-evident that much of what constitutes the scholarship of teaching goes on outside the classroom or student-faculty conference.
The University's four criteria (see endnote 3) closely parallel these four categories. However, this agreement in substance masks an underlying concern among faculty that is evident from the 1989 Faculty Survey (see endnote 4), in which 69 percent of faculty respondents at research universities agreed with the statement, "At my institution we need better ways, besides publications, to evaluate the scholarly performance of the faculty." Furthermore, the survey calls attention to disturbing age-related concerns: 53 percent of those under 40 years of age reported that, ". . . my job is the source of considerable personal strain . . .," 53 percent agreed that they hardly ever have time to give a piece of work the attention it deserves, and finally, 43 percent of those under 40 agreed that, "The pressure to publish reduces the quality of teaching at my university."
Although we do not have exactly comparable data for the University of California, anecdotal commentary indicates similar concerns among our faculty, as are reflected at research universities in general. In addition, data gathered by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA for 900 faculty at five UCcampuses show that although 38 percent feel that research interferes with teaching, 92 percent feel that research is a very high priority. Further, 97 percent rate being a teacher as very important, but only 7 percent stated that UC faculty are rewarded for good teaching.
Further information describing the evolution of the understanding and interpretation of the criteria can be found in the following comparison appearing in the Instructions to Review Committees as published in the Faculty Handbook between 1958 and 1970. The 1958 statement actually dates from a July 1, 1953, revision; the 1970 version is still current. Accordingly, nearly four decades of evolution of the criteria can be examined.
1958 -- In evaluating the candidate's qualifications within these areas (see endnote 5), the review committee will exercise reasonable flexibility, balancing, where the case requires, excellence in one area against less distinguished achievement in another.
Superior intellectual attainment, as evidenced in teaching and by scholarship, creative ability, or comparable achievement, is, however, an indispensable qualification.
1968 -- In evaluating the candidate's qualifications within these areas, the review committee shall exercise reasonable flexibility, balancing, where the case requires, heavier workload in one area against lighter workload in another. However, superior intellectual attainment, as evidenced both in teaching and in research or creative achievement, is an indispensable qualification for appointment or promotion to tenure positions since the professorship embodies the teaching-research function of the University.
1970 -- In evaluating the candidate's qualifications within these areas, the review committee shall exercise reasonable flexibility, balancing where the case requires, heavier commitments and responsibilities in one area against lighter commitments and responsibilities in another. The committee must judge whether the candidate is engaging in a program of work that is both sound and productive. As the University enters new fields of endeavor and refocuses its ongoing activities, cases will arise in which the proper work of faculty members departs markedly from established academic patterns. In such cases, the review committees must take exceptional care to apply the criteria with sufficient flexibility. However, flexibility does not entail a relaxation of high standards. 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. Insistence upon this standard for holders of the professorship is necessary for maintenance of the quality of the University as an institution dedicated to the discovery and transmission of knowledge.
This review of the wording of the performance criteria suggests several important conclusions. First, the four fundamental criteria have remained unchanged since 1953. These are teaching, research and creative work, professional activity, and University and public service. Likewise, insistence upon superior intellectual attainment has remained the definitive meaning of meritorious service and achievement. What has changed over time is the prescription as to how such attainment is to be evidenced. Note the following:
1958 -- "as evidenced in teaching, and by scholarship, creative ability, or comparable achievement"
1968 -- "as evidenced both in teaching and in research or creative achievement"
1970 -- same as 1968
Note especially that the term "research" does not appear in the 1958 statement on how attainment is to be evidenced, although it is explicit as a category of performance in the paragraphs that follow that statement.
A second significant change has to do with flexibility in interpreting the criteria in individual cases. Note the shift in emphasis implicit in its change in wording from 1958 to 1970:
1958 -- "the review committee will exercise reasonable flexibility, balancing where the case requires, excellence in one area against less distinguished achievement in another"
1968 -- "heavier workload in one area against lighter workload in another"
1970 -- "heavier commitments and responsibilities in one area against lighter commitments and responsibilities in another"
Finally, the 1970 statement (which is the current APM statement) for the first time adds the instruction:
As the University enters new fields of endeavor and refocuses its ongoing activities, cases will arise in which the proper work of faculty members departs markedly from established academic patterns. In such cases the review committees must take exceptional care to apply the criteria with sufficient flexibility. However, flexibility does not entail a relaxation of high standards.
![[UP]](../up.gif)
Return to "Task Force on Faculty Rewards" Contents