The New Scholarship and the Work of
Faculty: From Adaptation to Transformation of the Reappointment, Promotion and
Tenure Process
Judith Aiken, Pamela J. Kay, James
Mosenthal, Phyllis Paolucci-Whitcomb
The University of Vermont
§¨§
Abstract
Systems for reappointment, promotion, and
tenure of university faculty have long been part of most institutions of higher
education; tenure has been equated with the preservation of academic freedom.
Recent demands for faculty accountability challenge the assumption that tenure
is of value to society. Changing demographics of students and faculty call into
question systems of reappointment, promotion, and tenure, which rest
exclusively on research and publication. Guided by Boyer’s ideas (1990, 1996)
of a new scholarship, the authors of this paper engaged in collaborative
inquiry to define what it means to be a scholar. Acting as the Faculty Affairs
Committee of a college, we generated recommendations for reappointment,
promotion, and tenure and established new criteria for faculty evaluation. This
paper frames, narrates, describes, and interprets our transformation of the new
scholarship. Tenure remains as the basis of academic freedom, while expanded
criteria link the process of reappointment, promotion, and tenure to both
society’s needs and to the demands of a flourishing epistemology.
Introduction:
T |
he purpose of this study is to describe the conceptual and
practical uncertainties inherent in rethinking the work of reappointment,
promotion, and tenure (RPT) decisions[i].
This study was conducted in the United States in one of the eight colleges and
schools in a mid-sized university with approximately 9,000 full-time students,
950 faculty and 1800 staff. Our college is part of our state’s only
university-level institution, which blends the academic heritage of a private
university with service missions in the land-grant tradition. At the time of
this study, there were three departments in our college: the Departments of
Education, Integrated Professional Studies, and Social Work. The authors were
members of the Faculty Affairs Committee for the college from 1997-1999. We
represented the above three departments and were charged to study and develop
RPT processes and criteria to be applied across all departments of the college.
In this article, we tell our own story of
developing a broadened concept of what counts in RPT decisions from the
perspective of a land-grant university in the United States. Our guiding
philosophy was Boyer’s idea of a new scholarship (Boyer, 1990, 1996; Fraser,
1994; Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997).
Our motivation stemmed from the persistent
feeling among our faculty that RPT was, in the end, about juried publications
and faculty networks in the context of extraordinary loads in teaching and
service. In other words, reappointment, promotion or tenure was not truly
within the control of the individual faculty member.
Defining the New Scholarship
F |
ounded upon a belief in academic freedom, systems for
reappointment, promotion, and tenure have long been part of most institutions
for higher education. Faculty have been protected against threat or sanction in
their pursuit of knowledge and have been allowed great freedom to teach and
study whatever they want. As expressed by Tierney (1997), “Colleges and
universities are seen as places that advance understanding; without the
professoriate’s freedom to stretch boundaries and limits, society is at peril”
(p. 18). Academic freedom, however, was not equated with job security until the
establishment of tenure, or the right to hold on to one’s position. According
to Tierney, the concept of tenure engendered a system that helps to clarify and
formalize individual faculty rights and responsibilities as well as the roles
and obligations of the institution. Theoretically, the expectation was that
faculty would engage equally in teaching, research and service. In the last
half of the twentieth century, however, academic culture came to require
research as the primary criterion for achieving tenure. In a way, this system
could be viewed as a three-legged stool with the research leg supporting the
majority of the weight of tenure.
Many faculty members believe, as stated in
the Officers’ Handbook of the University of Vermont, that “[t]enure is an
indispensable pre-condition for academic freedom” (1996, p. 16). Academic
freedom, in turn, is viewed as essential to the building of a more just society
(Boyer, 1996; Rice, 1997; Tierney, 1997). Since the 1980s, however, society
itself has begun to question whether tenure affects the degree to which
universities can respond to the demands of society (Chait, 1995). In academic,
political, and media forums around the country, the merits and worth of tenure
have been repeatedly discussed, debunked, and challenged in ways that threaten
its very existence (Boyer, 1990, 1996; Chait, 1995; Glassick, Huber &
Maeroff, 1997; Premeaux & Mondy, 1996; Schön, 1995; Tierney, 1997).
While the tenure debate proceeded, both
the work and the composition of faculty
changed. In 1996, Guskin noted that more than 200 colleges and
universities were discussing the need for restructuring so that they could
learn how to do more with less. He suggested that faculty, administrators, and
trustees would either lead these change efforts or be forced into them by
external agencies and groups. Schuster (1996/97) studied demographics in higher
education and found the following changes: (a) approximately 30% of regular
faculty had seven or fewer years of experience in academe; (b) women comprised
40% of the new entrants compared to approximately 28% among senior faculty; (c)
of the new cohort, 16% were persons of color compared to 11% of the senior
faculty; and (d) only 67% of the new cohort were in tenured or tenure-track
appointments compared to 84% of their senior colleagues. Schuster also found
that the percentage of part-time faculty had increased from approximately 30%
to 42% in the preceding decade. These trends translated into a rapidly
shrinking cadre of core faculty members.
Student-to-faculty ratios increased, along
with both internal and external pressures for colleges and universities to
become simultaneously more cost effective and responsive to societal needs.
These factors increased faculty members’ responsibilities for teaching (more
students) and service (societal demands), restoring the traditional
three-legged stool of faculty work. Tenure processes, however, continued to
demand that faculty members demonstrate that they could balance exclusively on
the leg of research and publication before they would be assured of job
security.
For example, researchers in the field of
social work education found that social work faculty were engaged in scholarly
inquiry, but few published in peer-reviewed sources (Fraser, 1994; Hull &
Johnson, 1994). McMurtry and McClelland (1997) found that social work student
enrollment had increased since 1981. The number of full-time, tenure-track
faculty had declined, and the number of part-time faculty had increased, but
not in proportion to the number of students. As the authors stated, “Social
work has a ratio of MSW students to full-time MSW faculty that is twice as
large as the comparable ratio for psychology or communication sciences” (p.
304). Interestingly, none of these studies related the challenge of this increased
ratio of students to faculty as a possible explanation for why there is
considered to be only a “small core of prolific scholars” (Fraser, 1994, p.
257) in that profession.
Economic pressures, changing demographics
of students and faculty, and demands for accountability from state legislators
and university trustees led to a broad dialogue about what it means to be a
scholar. In 1990, the late Ernest Boyer, then the president of The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, called for enlarging the
perspective on scholarly work. Historically, he explained, the prerequisites
for scholarship focused first on teaching, second on service, and third on
research. The latter half of this century saw the focus narrowing, until the
term scholar came to be reserved for a person who engaged in research and
publication. Boyer challenged the professoriate to move beyond this limiting,
linear hierarchy of functions to a more interactive and comprehensive
understanding of scholarship that is less rigid, more flexible, and more
inclusive.
In his work, Scholarship Reconsidered:
Priorities of the Professoriate (1990), Boyer outlined four forms of
scholarship. He defined the generation of knowledge through which we confront
the unknown and seek understanding for its own sake as the scholarship of
discovery. The scholarship of integration refers to the serious, disciplined
work that seeks to interpret, draw together, and bring new insight to bear on
original research. Here connectedness, interdisciplinary and interpretive work
are important. The scholarship of application denotes the dynamic process
through which knowledge is applied to help solve individual and societal
problems, going far beyond the concept of service as good citizenship. Finally,
Boyer saw the scholarship of teaching as both educating and enticing future
scholars. It required that professors be widely read and intellectually engaged
so that they were not only transmitting knowledge, but transforming and
extending it as well. Boyer emphasized that theory leads to practice and that
practice often leads to theory, and that “[t]eaching, at its best, shapes both
research and service” (p. 16). In sum, Boyer’s vision of scholarship suggested
a revised standard for conducting academic work that both encompassed and
transformed the traditional areas of teaching, research, and service.
In a journal article published soon after
his death, Boyer (1996) suggested yet another aspect of scholarship. He
challenged colleges and universities to reconnect their generation of knowledge
with the “social, civic, and ethical problems” of the nation (p. 19). Restoring
our scholarship of engagement, he said, would enrich both the academic and
civic cultures in “a special climate in which [they] communicate more continuously
and more creatively with each other” (p. 20).
Adapting the New Concept
A |
s the Faculty Affairs Committee for the college, one of our
group’s charges was to develop recommendations for reappointment, promotion,
and tenure (RPT) criteria and procedures for the college. Traditionally,
criteria were used that operated at the university level, incorporating
adaptations by the college’s Faculty Evaluation Committee and/or standards for
RPT articulated by one’s field, e.g. social work, counseling. Since 1994 the
college had attempted to define standards for RPT through task forces and
committees. Though several documents were created, no action was taken. The
dean of the college asked our committee to continue this work. This study
frames, narrates, describes, and interprets the two years of work that resulted
in recommendations for our college level RPT criteria.
This article includes the following
sections. First, we summarize information resulting from our review of
published and unpublished literature related to the new scholarship, as well as
the policies and procedures for reappointment, tenure and promotion used in
several institutions of higher education. Second, we describe the methods used
by this committee. Third, the results of our study are delineated, including
the recommendations for broadened and balanced criteria and processes related
to teaching, research and service. Finally, we conclude with a series of
questions that remain to be answered, both in our own college and within other
institutions of higher education.
Boyer’s tenets matched the beliefs and
values of the majority of faculty members in our college. However, our
committee found that the traditional faculty reward system within the
university still prized publications over teaching, and formal research by
individuals over collaborative action research resulting from engagement.
Despite debates and informal documents within our college, individual faculty
members had no guarantee that their peers would know how to evaluate either the
teaching and service aspects of their professional portfolios, or their
scholarship conducted under alternative paradigms. Obviously, there are some
risks when faculty choose to aspire to contemporary standards of scholarship
and are later evaluated by persons adhering to more traditional standards. An
example cited by Schön (1995) underlined our concerns: an individual was not
granted tenure because colleagues had no basis for understanding his
scholarship.
Convinced that we needed to redefine
scholarship and the nature of faculty work in our college, our committee
explored the literature for effective strategies for change. In Guskin (1996)
we found a model that reflected the process being used by our new university
president. Guskin suggested that organizational change in higher education
requires working in four areas: the rational, social-interactional,
psychological, and political. Especially pertinent to our efforts were two of
his recommended five practices for success, using internal expertise as much as
possible and supporting risk-takers. Within the college, we had both the
potential for stronger community and untapped expertise in organizational
development. We realized that our faculty needed to agree on basic strategies
to reinforce our professional community (Schuster, 1996/97), and to develop
shared responsibility. Faculty members would become proactive about problems
that confronted them, rather than reactive to solutions suggested by
administrators or committees (Tierney, 1997).
Mindful of Guskin’s (1996) advice to
support risk-takers, we realized that we needed to discuss with colleagues how
to develop and maintain a sense of communal respect for faculty work (Tierney,
1997). We found one example proposed by Padgett and Begun (1996), who described
a collaborative, nonhierarchical approach to supporting the scholarship of
social work faculty. Their model was developed by and for faculty who perceived
that writing barriers posed a threat to their career development. When teaching
and committee work impinged on writing, faculty gave one another writing
assignments with deadlines, helped one another with teaching duties, helped
vulnerable faculty get reassigned, and initiated a “Just Say No!” stance to
help faculty respond to non-writing requests. When family responsibilities
impinged on writing, faculty shared care for one another’s children, supported
each other in prioritization of conflicting responsibilities, and created
on-campus writing time.
Protecting the risk-takers also had
implications for preserving tenure. As Tierney (1997) noted, it is imperative
to retain tenure if faculty are to remain intellectually curious, competitive,
and free. Tenure currently provides a structure that supports academic freedom:
“The point here is not what best serves the individual or even the institution;
it is rather what best serves society’s interest in creating conditions most
conducive to scholarship” (p. 23).
We then turned our attention from the
social-interactional and psychological areas of change to the political and
rational, adopting three steps outlined by Diamond and Adam (1993). First, the
department must become the unit of planning and evaluation. Second, a system of
individualized performance planning keyed to departmental mission as the basis
for faculty roles, evaluation, and reward must be developed. Third, chairs and
their faculty must develop written performance criteria that articulate
standards of excellence in teaching, research and service. To make it work, we
knew that we needed to gain the support of administrators at the department,
college and university levels, and to develop promotion and tenure standards
that fit the unique missions and contributions of our various departments
(Lidstone, Hacker & Oien, 1996). As a college-wide committee of the
faculty, our role was to lead that process by providing guidelines that could
be adopted as the foundation of our shared community.
Finally, we looked for models for
evaluation of the new scholarship. Tierney (1997) recommended that faculty use
reflexive assessments to create a culture that looks forward rather than
backward, and outlines what individuals and the organization want to achieve.
In Restructuring the University Reward System (1997), the authors called on
universities to shift the focus of faculty work so that teaching, service, and
research are equally rewarded. They suggested that faculty should be permitted
to choose a teaching, research, or service focus for their major area of
expertise while maintaining some level of success in all three areas. Expanding
on Boyer’s concept of the new scholarship, Glassick, Huber and Maeroff (1997)
provided us with clear examples of the qualities of a scholar, the process of
setting standards for scholarly work and documenting scholarship, and the
challenges of implementing criteria for evaluation.
From Adaptation to Transformation Pursuing
Engagement
W |
e began our committee’s work as an effort to adapt our college’s
policies and procedures for RPT in response to both external societal forces
and internal changes within our university. In this process, however, we also
discovered that our efforts to be responsive to these factors raised one of our
most fundamental tensions: Were we trying to fit into the traditional tenure
mold while trying to change the mold in the process? (Driscoll & Lynton,
1997). Over the course of the two years, it became increasingly clear to us
that the changes we were promoting were more fundamental than adapting to the
external and internal forces upon us. In many respects, we were engaging in a
collaborative transformation of a culture of research and publication in which
our tenure system was embedded.
We defined the standards upon which we
intended to build our new policies and procedures for RPT, and outlined the
document and performance criteria against which judgments about quality could
be made. As we worked, we found ourselves rethinking our roles as faculty and
finding validation in the ways that our teaching, research, and service are
integrated into the scholarship of engagement. What became clear for us was the
idea that our professional lives are well represented by our engagement with
society, and that this engagement needed to play a part in RPT decisions.
Committee Methods
T |
here were four members of the College Faculty Affairs Committee,
three females and one male. According to our college bylaws, each member of the
committee had been nominated by other members of the faculty at the same rank
and then voted on by all members of the college faculty. Therefore, our
committee consisted of one person at each of the following ranks: Lecturer,
Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. Our committee met
regularly throughout two academic years (1997-98 and 1998-99) and periodically
throughout three summers (1997, 1998 and 1999). One committee member (on a
rotating basis) kept minutes of the meetings, which the other members reviewed
and approved between meetings via electronic mail. Minutes were then posted via
electronic mail to all members of the college faculty to encourage their
reactions; few comments were received through that process.
During the first year, committee members
reviewed research on the topic, developed ideas and procedures through
brainstorming, discussed and debated issues and divided committee work among
all members. Through those processes our committee developed several drafts of
our work until we were satisfied that we had a complete draft.
This draft was mailed to members of the college faculty two weeks
prior to the first
meeting of that academic year (1998-99).
During that meeting, the committee
presented a brief overview of the document, summarizing its recommendations for
changes in philosophy, content, and process. Each faculty member attending was
given a feedback form, and asked to write his/her responses to three questions:
(a) What do you like about this document? (b) What are your concerns about it?
(c) What needs to be clarified? Discussions ensued in randomly-selected small
groups, notes were taken, and essential concerns reported to the assembled
group.
One committee member analyzed the content
of individual and group responses to the three questions used for evaluation.
Many faculty members praised the committee’s work for its clarity, good fit
with their own values, and comprehensiveness. Others used terms such as
respectful, coherent, flexible, helpful, and ground-breaking. The university
president commented, “I hope that other groups of faculty will study this work
and create versions of it appropriate to their disciplines”. Two areas where
additions were requested were ethics, and standards from differing disciplines
within the college.
Faculty members expressed concerns in
philosophical, political, and practical realms. Philosophically, the major area
of concern was the potential for losing the traditional definition of
scholarship through grounding the document in the new scholarship. Others
questioned the applicability of the term scholarship to such functions as
chairing a department or committee or mentoring new faculty. The most pressing
political issue concerned department autonomy and acceptance of these policies
by the rest of the university, external reviewers, and other institutions where
faculty might seek positions. Practical issues included suggestions for
clarifying the document and implementation concerns. We presented a summary at
a faculty meeting late in the fall of 1998.
Based on this information, each committee
member selected a portion of the document to revise. These revisions were
integrated into the document by the whole committee through a collaborative
writing process. As a result, the second complete draft was submitted to the
faculty at an April 1999 meeting. Based on faculty discussions and reactions,
we made two major changes. First, rather than force a vote which would require
college-level approval, we revised the wording in the document to support
department autonomy and emphasized that departments that did not have their own
criteria for RPT or preferred these could choose to adopt these criteria or use
their own. Second, the members of our committee acknowledged a transformation
in our thinking from a traditional/modern view, e.g., forcing a vote of
acceptance of this report, to an alternative/postmodern view, embracing our
report as a living document. A third complete draft was prepared and
disseminated in May. During the summer of
1999 we requested editorial recommendations from a senior faculty
member and incorporated them in a final version, which was submitted to the
College Faculty Executive Committee in October 1999.
The Executive Committee is a cross
department committee that plans and conducts business at college faculty
meetings. With the report in its hands, the Executive Committee learned that
one department objected to college-level standards for RPT since they had
already developed their own criteria and processes; also, their national
accreditation standards required that they maintain autonomy over such matters.
Faculty from this smaller department worried that their identity within the
college and within their national field would be compromised by a college-level
document that required college-wide RPT criteria. Rather than bring the RPT
report to a vote, the Executive Committee decided to bring the report to the
faculty as a topic for further discussion noting the above objections. It was
unacceptable to the Executive Committee that possible tensions between
departments be created by a vote in which the majority of faculty members
overwhelmed or silenced the objections of one department. In the discussion of
our report at the next faculty meeting, several alternatives were discussed
that preserved the integrity of the report as well as the small department. The
alternatives supporting departmental autonomy regarding RPT processes and
criteria were being further discussed at departmental and college levels at the
time of this publication.
Changing the Mold: The Committee’s Model
for RPT
Criteria and Processes
W |
e recognized that scholarship needed to be broadly defined to
represent the variety of interests and multiple ways of knowing presented by
our community of scholars in the college. Another focus of our work was forging
a closer linkage to institutional and community needs (Tierney, 1997) by demonstrating
how a faculty member’s scholarship supports the mission and purpose of our
college. We acknowledged in our new policies and procedures for RPT that the
process for documenting and presenting scholarship is similar across all forms
of professional work, and that diverse scholarly activities can be subjected to
similar measures of quality.
A contribution of our new model is that it
adopts the new meaning of scholarship
(Boyer, 1990) by applying it to the traditional areas of teaching,
research, and service. The faculty are asked to view their teaching and
service, as well as their research, as a form of scholarship and to present it
as such at times of reappointment, promotion, and tenure.
The case for the intellectual attainment
and scholarly contributions of teaching and service presented our biggest
challenges. Much like Shulman (1993), we worked from the premise that the
scholarship of teaching and the scholarship of service are activities that
transform knowledge into enhanced understanding and application for the
community of scholars, students, and clients we serve. We also believe that
teaching and service can be powerful ways of fostering new knowledge.
To enable this, our model asks that a
faculty member identify his/her scholarly agenda, which becomes a major
component of the materials submitted for evaluation. This change raised some
key questions. What can be submitted as evidence of scholarship in teaching and
service? How will this material be reviewed and evaluated and by what criteria?
How will the candidate distinguish between what is to be reviewed as
scholarship and what is to be reviewed as effective work in teaching and
service?
Materials submitted as evidence of scholarship are subject to two
sets of measures,
Document Criteria and Performance Criteria. These criteria allow
faculty to present their work in such a way that it can be reviewed externally
to the department, college, or university.
Document Criteria
I |
n order to identify document criteria, our committee first defined
teaching, research and service, then developed sets of characteristics for each
type of faculty work. For example, teaching includes scholarly functions that
(a) transmit and transform knowledge, (b) relate to improved student learning,
(c) connect teacher understanding and student learning, (d) involve continuing
self-development and growth in knowledge, (e) occur not only in classrooms, but
also in a variety of settings, (f ) mentor students and other faculty, and (g)
provide academic advisement for graduates and undergraduates. These functions
serve as guides in considering specific documents one might include in his/her
professional portfolio, to be used as evidence of scholarship in teaching.
Each area — teaching, research, and
service — has document criteria. What is new, at least in the case of teaching
and service, is providing evidence for scholarship in these areas, especially
when the evidence represents nontraditional materials, e.g. syllabi, committee
memberships and contributions, and samples of student work (Glassick et al.,
1997).
Performance Criteria
T |
he premise that common criteria for performance can be applied
across modes of scholarly work is based on the idea that scholarship is
inherently a form of inquiry. As such, its evaluation is based on the extent to
which the candidate’s work exhibits rigor, clarity, and depth of thought. Our
committee adapted a set of criteria from Glassick et al. (1997) for quality and
significance in performance: (a) clarity of purpose, (b) knowledge of the
field, (c) appropriate methodology, (d) significance of the findings, (e)
effective communication, and (f ) self-reflective critique. These standards can
be applied to teaching, research, and service.
Processes Documenting and Evaluating
Scholarship
I |
n our model, the candidate’s execution of his/her professional
responsibilities is a necessary condition for RPT, including documentation of
participation in traditional research endeavors. A second necessary condition
is the documentation of scholarship in the candidate’s teaching and service.
This documentation is presented in a narrative Professional Profile. Herein
lies the essential characteristic of the new system. The candidate provides a
scholarly agenda that describes the area(s) in which s/he wants to be evaluated
for the quality of his/her scholarship, and references documentation as
evidence of scholarship.
The Scholarly Agenda and the Professional
Profile
T |
he candidate’s statement of her/his scholarly agenda in the
Professional Profile refers to that work which, in the case of promotion, would
be sent out for external review. As indicated by the Performance Criteria, this
is work the candidate wants evaluated as inquiry in teaching, research or
service. The scholarly agenda delineates a set of serious intellectual pursuits
that engage the individual faculty member; it states the manner in which the
scholar’s activities in teaching, service, and/or research relate to his or her
field of knowledge. One’s scholarly agenda evolves over the years to reflect
changes in professional inquiry and varying emphases on teaching, research, and
service. Scholarly work also varies among faculty, with differential weight
given to teaching, research and/or service. The faculty member must define
clearly her/his primary area(s) of scholarship. Because the documentation will
not necessarily be in the form of published work, it is critical for the
candidate to explain the quality and significance of the work in addition to
quantifying or categorizing the work.
Presenting Scholarship
W |
hether for reappointment or promotion, it is the faculty member’s
responsibility to present materials for his/her primary areas of scholarship so
that they can be evaluated against the performance criteria. For promotion to
the rank of Associate or Full Professor, faculty will be reviewed externally as
well as internally in those primary areas of scholarship. Given the breadth of
potential documents, the candidate’s letter to reviewers must describe clearly
the range of materials to be considered for evidence to scholarship, as well as
the processes and
criteria to be used in their evaluations.
Departmental expectations apply for every
RPT decision, including the expectation that the candidate’s assignment include
participation in research, e.g., as consultant, in data collection, or other
functions. When research is identified as a primary area of scholarship, the
candidate must document his/her role as primary investigator, resulting in
juried publications.
Where teaching is identified as a primary
area of scholarship, additional documentation is required in the Professional
Profile over and above the standard observations, syllabi, and student
evaluations. Faculty members must document their teaching as a form of inquiry
that can be reviewed by others, internally or externally. Similar documentation
and review processes are required if the candidate identifies service as a
primary area of his/her scholarship.
In other words, the candidate must provide
a thorough explanation of how the documentation meets the performance criteria
for RPT.
Discussion
A |
s a faculty in a college of professions, our teaching, our
research, and our service each claim significant parts of our energy, thought,
and commitment. As a committee within that college, we have worked to define
criteria by which the multiple activities of our professional lives could be
evaluated as scholarship with a rigor equivalent to that of a juried
publication. This scholarship may then serve as a basis for reappointment, promotion
and tenure.
In our approach to evaluation, the
individual faculty member is held accountable to standards of inquiry
identified in his/her scholarly agenda, delineating those aspects of work that
s/he wants appraised as scholarship. This choice brings with it the
responsibility to document and explain the scholarship in a manner that is
understandable to external and internal reviewers. In review, evaluators apply
performance criteria developed by Boyer’s colleagues (Glassick et al., 1987).
It is an approach in which making a difference in the community is valued
(scholarship of application) along with the research publication (scholarship
of discovery).
Is what we have proposed possible?
Traditionally promotions have been grounded in juried publications that are the
result of research. This remains a primary route to RPT. In addition, our model
makes it possible for faculty members to carry out and document any aspect of
their legitimate work such that others could evaluate it as a form of inquiry. This
alternative RPT route represents an expansion, synthesis, and transformation of
what has been valued both within the institution and without, responsive to the
needs of society while expanding the magnitude of knowledge.
However, the feasibility of evaluating
unpublished writing according to performance criteria, and the subsequent issue
of utilizing reviews is untested. A college’s faculty evaluation committee must
judge the candidate’s work according to reviews unsupported by publications in
refereed journals. Is there objectivity enough in the review process such that
these decisions do not become perfunctory? Is there objectivity enough such
that review can be rigorous and not subject to routine challenge?
Judgement by one’s peers in the field, objectivity,
anonymity, generality—these are the standards of knowledge in an epistemology
of science. When a faculty member works with the community, with students, or
with peers, then documents and reflects on that work as his/her scholarship,
these standards do not apply as cleanly. The faculty member is a player, and
the players are known, and what is learned or accomplished is specific to the
context in which the inquiry is carried out. The standards of this local
inquiry are the standards of clarity of purpose, knowledgeability, appropriate
methodology, importance of the work to the community of persons from which it
originated, dissemination to appropriate audiences, and self-reflection. These
are the standards of knowledge in a practical epistemology. Our approach to
faculty evaluation is intended to embrace both scientific and practical
epistemologies, and in so doing embrace the diversity of work carried out in
the name of a college of professions. This is the scholarship of engagement.
Lessons of Our Committee Service
A |
practical epistemology
applies to our work as a Faculty Affairs Committee, and as the authors of this
paper. We did not know initially that the nature and credibility of our report
would be a function of the sincerity and comprehensiveness with which we
initiated and maintained overlapping discussions with our own committee and the
faculty of the college. This is our first lesson: Our work would have come to
naught if the problem solving did not cut across all groups. As reported in the
beginning of this paper, consulting the literature on faculty evaluation was an
ongoing, constant source of ideas, affirmation, and warning for us. The
meetings with faculty in individual, small group, program, department, and
college settings focused our work and kept all informed of our progress.
Our second lesson is the flip side of the
first. These discussions revealed the intellectual, political, and personal
concerns of those who would be affected by our work.
Interdepartmental, interprofessional, interrank, and interpersonal
differences of opinion
forced us to reconsider the assumption that there could be one way
of evaluating all faculty. We might have foreseen that our college’s diversity
could not be cleanly accommodated in a common evaluation process. We rest with
a product that will most likely be considered for adoption by separate
departments. All or some may adopt what our committee developed, or they may
adapt it to their own needs. It is quite clear that we do not, and did not, own
this report; nor does anyone else within the college. It is a document that
will get used in different ways, but it does not represent a single, common set
of recommendations for RPT.
As a third lesson, we confronted the idea
that our transformative thinking masks the conservativeness of maintaining the
status quo. Earlier we asked, “Were we trying to fit into the traditional
tenure mold while trying to change the mold in the process?” (Driscoll &
Lynton, 1997, p. 25). Over the course of the two years of our committee’s work,
it became increasingly clear to us that the changes we were promoting were more
fundamental than adapting to the external and internal forces acting upon us.
In many respects, we felt we were engaging in a collaborative transformation of
a research-publication culture in which our tenure system has been embedded.
Still, our proposal does not ask the question about the validity or viability
of tenure, only what might count toward it.
This article is the result of our
scholarship in the course of our service on the Faculty Affairs Committee. We
remain committed to the belief that it is possible and of value to reward the
diversity of work as forms of scholarship when it is undertaken, reported, and
evaluated as scholarship. This article was equally conceptualized, written and
revised by all four authors. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of our
colleagues in the College of Education and Social Services at the University of
Vermont, which assisted us in transforming the reappointment, promotion and
tenure process.
Notes
[i] The
term reappointment as used in this article and in the United States is
consistent with the Canadian term appointment. We acknowledge that there are
some similarities and differences among Canadian and American university and
college systems. We invite our readers to adapt and utilize aspects of this
article to their own settings.
References
Boyer, E. L.
(1990). Enlarging the perspective. In E.L. Boyer, Scholarship reconsidered:
Priorities of the professoriate (pp. 15-25). Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching.
Boyer, E. L.
(1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Services &
Outreach, 1(1), 11-20.
Chait, R. P.
(1995). The future of academic tenure. Priorities, (3).
Diamond, R.
M., & Adam, B. E. (Eds.). (1993). Recognizing faculty work: Reward
systems for the year 2000. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Diamond, R.
M. & Adam, B. E. (1995). The disciplines speak: Rewarding the scholarly,
professional, and creative work of faculty. Washington DC: American
Association for Higher Education.
Driscoll, A.
& Lynton, E. (1997). Documenting professional service: A progress report. Metropolitan
Universities: An International Forum.8(1), 1937.
Fraser, M.
W. (1994). Scholarship and research in social work: Emerging challenges. Journal
of Social Work Education. 30(2), 252-265.
Glassick, C.
E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed:
Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Guskin, A.
E. (1996, July/August). Facing the future: The change process in restructuring
universities. Change, 34.
Hull, G. H.,
& Johnson, H. W. (1994). Publication rates of undergraduate social work
programs in selected journals. Journal of Social Work Education, 30 (1),
54-61.
Lidstone, J.
E., Hacker, P. E., & Oien, F. M. (1996). Where the rubber meets the road:
Revising promotion and tenure standards. Quest, 48 (2), 200-210.
McMurtry, S.
L., & McClelland, R. W. (1997). Trends in student-faculty ratios and the
use of non-tenure-track faculty in MSW programs. Journal of Social Work
Education, 33 (2), 293-306.
Padgett, D.
L., & Begun, A. L. (1996). The writer’s guide: A model of support for
social work faculty. Journal of Social Work Education, 32 (2), 237-243.
Schön, D. A.
(1995, November/December). Knowing in action: The new scholarship requires a
new epistemology. Change, 27-34.
Schuster, J.
H. (1996/97, Fall/Winter). The faculty in transition: Implications for a new
era in higher education. The Academic Workplace, 4-7.
Shulman, L.
S. (1993, November/December). Teaching as community property. Change, 6.
Sid W.
Richardson Foundation Forum. (1997). Restructuring the university reward
system. Fort Worth TX: Author.
Tierney, W.
G. (1997). Tenure and community in academe. Educational Researcher, 26
(8), 17-23.
University of Vermont. (1996). Officers’ Handbook. Burlington, VT: Author.