The operative sentence in APM Section 210-1-d reads:
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.
There is no issue concerning the indispensability of superior intellectual attainment in the work of faculty, nor does flexibility, as mandated in the 1970 statement above, entail a relaxation of high standards. At the heart of faculty (and Task Force) concern is the question of in which four areas of faculty performance such attainment is to be evidenced and how the appropriate balance among them is to be assessed. These are precisely the two issues in the Instructions to Review Committees in which changes have occurred. Current policy states explicitly that there must be evidence of superior attainment "both in teaching and in research or other creative achievement," i.e., the measure of performance is to embrace the complete spectrum of faculty work -- teaching as well as the discovery, integration and application of knowledge. Indeed, University policy places special emphasis on teaching by insisting that intellectual attainment be evidenced in teaching performance, along with attainment in "research or other creative achievement."
Two observations must be made here. First, although the APM emphasizes the need for a range of evidence to establish superior intellectual attainment in teaching, the fact is that assessment of data and documentation of such attainment places a major burden on departmental colleagues, a burden that is all too often not assumed. As a consequence, student evaluations, which are required, have become the primary and often only indicator of teaching performance. Nevertheless, self-assessment, student evaluation, and careful peer evaluation of teaching, as now mandated in APM 210-1-d(1), are essential to give appropriate weight to teaching performance. We must, we believe, give equivalent emphasis to peer evaluation of teaching as we give to peer evaluation of research.
The University's ability to encourage and reward effective teaching requires the development of efforts both to assess the strength of each faculty member's teaching and to encourage programs at the departmental level and elsewhere that focus faculty on teaching and underscore its importance in the University. These efforts must be conducted in a supportive, collegial atmosphere where the purposes are (1) to help faculty achieve a high level of accomplishment in their teaching and (2) to ensure that faculty who have demonstrated effective teaching are rewarded.
Over the period under review, we believe that there has also been a narrowing of the interpretation of "superior intellectual attainment, as evidenced . . . in research or other creative achievement." The work of the faculty will, and indeed must, continue to emphasize the scholarship of discovery. However, the mission of the University requires that the faculty also embrace the scholarship of integration and application of knowledge. Current policy does in fact encompass the broad definition of scholarship. Thus, the APM currently devotes Section 210-1-d(2) to Research and Creative Work, stressing appropriate understanding of "intellectual attainment" in professional fields and in the arts, the expression of which is quite different from traditional concepts of the scholarship of discovery. Concern for recognition of the distinctive qualities of various fields in the evaluation process is set forth in APM 210-1-d(3), which reads:
In certain positions in the professional schools and colleges, such as architecture, business administration, dentistry, engineering, law, medicine, etc., a demonstrated distinction in the special competencies appropriate to the field and its characteristic activities should be recognized as a criterion for appointment or promotion. The candidate's professional activities should be scrutinized for evidence of achievement and leadership in the field and of demonstrated progressiveness in the development or utilization of new approaches and techniques for the solution of professional problems. It is the responsibility of the department chairperson to provide evidence that the position in question is of the type described above and that the candidate is qualified to fill it.
This principle must be extended to practice. We strongly support the principle and urge its application to other academic disciplines where "applied research" and "other creative achievement" frequently have not enjoyed the standing they deserve. In short, we urge that the phrase "or other creative achievement" be taken with the utmost seriousness and be given the emphasis that the broad mission of the University requires.
To give the point added emphasis, it should be better understood that the practice professions are explicitly purposive and are responsible for prescribing actions aimed at desired future outcomes. In these respects, they differ from the sciences and from the classical fields of scholarship, both of which stress the inherent value of ideas and knowledge, learning and understanding. The practice professions, in contrast, are by nature interventionist; knowledge for them holds instrumental value. Most significant, the professions are devoted to altering, in addition to understanding, the world, whether in the design of our built environment or in the design and effectuation of policies devoted to enhancing public benefit. If reviewers assess work in the practice professions against criteria more appropriate to work in the classical arts and science disciplines, then candidates for appointment or promotion may be unfairly judged for their seeming failure to demonstrate superior intellectual attainment.
Thus far, our concern has been the need for flexibility in applying performance criteria over the four areas of faculty endeavor. There is a second kind of flexibility which needs attention. We have in mind accommodating the fact that the career paths of individual faculty can change with time and differ one from another. The emphasis given to the various areas of faculty responsibility probably should change with time if the talents and energy of faculty are to be realized to the fullest and if the comprehensive mission of the University is to be achieved. Diversity, not uniformity, is the key to realization of faculty potential. Once again we find that University policy enables, yet practice does not encourage, the kind of flexibility in career paths that is called for to achieve this objective.
The needs of society and the University make it both necessary and desirable to encourage established scholars (those who have already demonstrated the capacity for superior intellectual attainment in teaching and in research or other creative achievement) to undertake scholarly activities that more broadly support the University's mission than does the exclusive focus on scholarship of discovery (research). Examples include (but are not limited to):
Such activities are not permanent substitutes for scholarship of discovery, nor are they suited to all faculty. But, if one accepts the importance of engagement by established scholars in activities vital to the University's mission and to society, beyond what is normally associated with teaching and research, then the reward system must be sufficiently flexible to award proper recognition for these activities. This flexibility is recognized in the APM in the statement:
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.
We cannot overemphasize the importance of maintaining this point of view 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.
Explicit recognition of the kind of temporary substitution of activities called for above appears in the APM in connection with service as department chair (Section 245-11, Criteria for Evaluating Leadership and Service in the Academic Personnel Process):
Academic leadership is, in itself, a significant academic activity. Therefore, distinguished leadership and effective discharge of administrative duties by a department chairperson shall be considered appropriate criteria in evaluating the performance of a department chairperson for a merit increase, accelerated increase, or promotion. It is expected that a department chairperson will remain active in both teaching and research in order to maintain his or her capabilities in the appropriate field of scholarship. However, a chairperson who discharges his or her duties as a chairperson effectively may have reduced time for teaching and research. Reduced activity in these areas that results from active service as a department chairperson should be recognized as a shift in the type of academic activity pursued by the department chairperson rather than a shift away from academic pursuits altogether. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to award a merit increase, or, if performance warrants it, an accelerated increase, primarily for demonstrated excellence in service in the chair appointment when accompanied by evidence of continued productive involvement in scholarly activities.
This statement is an example of how the review process is designed to recognize a vitally important role that faculty play in the University in the fulfillment of its mission in society. We, therefore, strongly urge more explicit recognition in the APM of other variations in the career paths of established scholars important to the University.
In this connection, we urge a change in current policy governing advancement to Step VI of the professorship. The two detailed reviews conducted at the times of advancement to the associate professorship and to the full professorship provide firm evidence of the candidate's qualifications for membership on the University's faculty. Additional detailed review at Step VI seems unnecessary and unwarranted when the associated special criteria inhibit recognition of alternative career paths. Step-wise advancement within the professor rank should follow only upon demonstration of continued meritorious service, and it should be sufficient to conduct a mid-rank career verification as the alternative to a full-scale review at Step VI. Accordingly, we propose that, at about the twelfth year in the professor rank, the normal review for a merit increase devote special attention to the professor's progress, supplemented by appraisals from external reviewers.
Advancement beyond Step VIII must be reserved only for those whose scholarship and teaching is of "the highest distinction and whose work has been internationally recognized and acclaimed." Consideration for above-scale rank calls for the most rigorous and detailed appraisal, and therefore, requires continuation of the present review procedures.