Task Force Report On Restructuring
University Reward System
Calls For Change in "Publish Or Perish" Edict
Note:
Report published in April 1997Contacts:
Valleau Wilkie, Jr., Executive Director
Sid W. Richardson Foundation
817/336-0494 Fax 817/332-2176Frances van Tassell
Chair, Task Force on Restructuring the University Reward System
Sid W. Richardson Foundation Forum
817-565-4420
Fort Worth, TX - The reward system for university professors should be changed to offer more incentives for excellence in teaching and service and to place less emphasis on traditional research and publishing. This is the recommendation of Restructuring the University Reward System, a report released in April 1997 by the Sid W. Richardson Foundation Forum Task Force on Restructuring the University Reward System.
"Faculty do not perceive excellent teaching or service to their professions as being as important as research in influencing decisions on promotion, tenure, or merit pay," said Valleau Wilkie, Jr., executive director of the Sid W. Richardson Foundation, which sponsors the forum.
"This report presents the results of almost two years of work by the 12-member task force, assisted by numerous other individuals and organizations," he said. "We hope the report will stimulate further discussion and action to improve one of our nation’s most valuable assets — our universities."
Noting that higher education is being challenged to be more accountable to the demands of the society which it serves, Frances van Tassell, task force chair and faculty member in the College of Education at the University of North Texas, said, "A significant area of contemporary public interest involves how universities reward faculty with tenure, promotion, and merit pay. Practices which were once deemed effective and appropriate currently appear obsolete and less than adequate."
Citing the creation of "invisible professors" by the present system, the report calls for creation of different tracks by universities to offer rewards based on different combinations of teaching, research, and service. In addition to Dr. van Tassell, who served as principal author of the report, primary authors were: Kendall Blanchard, provost & vice president for academic affairs, University of Tennessee, Martin, Tenn.; Paul Dixon, professor, Department of Counseling, Development & Higher Education, College of Education, University of North Texas, Denton; Glenn Ross Johnson, professor, College of Education, Texas A&M University, College Station; and L. Dayle Yeager, designer of the report’s tables and figures, professor, Department of Industrial & Engineering Technology, College of Business and Technology, Texas A&M University - Commerce.
The authors also served as members of the task force with Melinda Cowart, assistant professor, Department of Teacher Education & Administration, University of North Texas, Denton; Weldon English, executive director of technology systems, Arlington Independent School District, Arlington, Texas; Blaine Brownell, provost & vice president for academic affairs, University of North Texas, Denton; Pearl Garza Fracchia, area manager - constituency relations, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Dallas; Pat Hanks, director of professional development, Association of Texas Professional Educators, Austin; Shawn Irvine, director of educational relations, Texas Utilities Electric, Dallas; and Douglas Simpson, Dean, School of Education, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth.
The Sid W. Richardson Foundation Forum was founded in October 1990 to provide a venue for leaders from schools, business, government, universities, and foundations to discuss education reform. The Foundation Forum’s initial task force produced the widely disseminated publication, The Professional Development School, recognized nationwide as a document of integrity that has had direct impact on the national move toward development of clinical field-based preparation programs.
During 1994 the Foundation Forum commissioned five task forces to consider specific aspects of a system restructuring process. One task force looked at funding issues, another considered appropriate avenues for technology infusion, the third focused on research and development, and the fourth reviewed current practices in administrator preparation programs throughout Texas.
The fifth task force was assigned to critically look at how higher education institutions reward faculty in tenure and promotion practices, across institutional lines. Restructuring the University Reward System is the resulting report.
National Survey
The recommendations of the task force were made after a national survey of 156 institutions of higher education. A total of 1,560 questionnaires were sent to randomly selected provosts, deans, and faculty members to determine the reward systems at their institutions, and attitudes toward those rewards, with approximately 800 responding. The survey found that only 17% of the faculty surveyed were satisfied with the current reward system. Thirty-six percent of the provosts and 30.6% of the deans reported satisfaction.
Examining the kinds of performance pressure placed on faculty, there was general agreement among faculty, deans, and provosts that there is pressure to conduct research. But the three groups had different perceptions of the emphasis on teaching and on service. More than 97% of provosts and 88% of deans felt there was pressure for quality teaching, while only 82% of faculty had this perception. The differences in perceptions of service emphasis were more pronounced, with 86.6% of the provosts perceiving pressure on faculty to perform service, while 71.9% of the deans and only 65.8% of the faculty shared this perception.
When asked for suggestions to improve the reward system, survey respondents suggested increased emphasis on teaching, service, and collaboration. They also suggested increasing merit pay and differentiating faculty roles.
Invisible Professors
The present system produces two types of "invisible professors," according to the task force. One professor remains isolated in the academy, concentrates on research and publication, and remains "invisible" to the outside world. The other professor spends much time engaged in collaborative efforts and has high visibility with educators and others in service agencies. But this professor frequently becomes "invisible" within the traditional academic circles which influence tenure and promotion.
Faculty normally divide their time according to identified, or perceived, requirements for tenure, promotion, and merit pay. When these rewards are perceived to be granted mainly for sponsored research and publication in refereed journals, these activities are how faculty will spend their time. These priorities are especially troublesome for faculty in colleges of education, health, agriculture, or other institutions where extensive contact with those in the field is required. The work required for this contact may not leave sufficient time for the traditional academic activities of research and publication that lead to promotion and tenure.
Origins of "Publish or Perish" System
A shift from teaching to research as the most rewarded scholarly activity can be traced to the demand for research during World War II and in the years afterward. New research-oriented doctoral students graduated with Ph.Ds or Ed.Ds and moved into university settings in response to a need for more faculty members who could conduct research.
Today, the research paradigm seems ingrained in the university's culture, both in the United States and abroad. International studies have discovered that large percentages of faculty members in foreign universities have felt pressured to do more research than they would like to do, and many reported that it was difficult to achieve tenure if they did not publish.
Similarly, the late Ernest L. Boyer reported in 1990 (Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate) that 83% of research university faculty members strongly agreed that it was difficult to obtain tenure if they did not publish, while only 24% of liberal arts faculty strongly agreed with this perception. This difference between research and liberal arts university faculty was also apparent in their perceptions of evaluations of their teaching. Forty-five percent of faculty respondents at liberal arts colleges reported that student evaluations of teaching were very important for granting tenure, while only 10% of faculty in research universities considered student evaluations to be very important in granting tenure.
Faults of Reward System
The result of the present reward system is a disparity between incentives for faculty and missions of the institutions of the universities. Faculty activities and accomplishments reflecting research and creative activities having least importance to students' preparation for professional life receive the greatest attention and rewards.
The present system lacks mechanisms for rewarding those who make significant contributions in field-based efforts, such as those in education. There is also no linkage between evaluation of faculty in professional programs and the success of graduates in those programs.
New Model Recommended
To correct the faults in the present system, the task force suggests that universities provide four different roles that a faculty member might fill:
(a) teaching 100%;
(b) teaching 50% and research 50%;
(c) teaching 50% and service to the profession 50%; or
(d) teaching 50%, research 25%, and service 25%.
Faculty choosing the first role would have heavy teaching loads, and evaluations for their promotion, tenure, and merit pay would be restricted entirely to matters dealing with teaching effectiveness. Those in the other roles would have only about half as heavy a teaching load but would be expected to contribute in the other areas of their roles.
Universities might choose to differentiate faculty roles in a number of ways. In addition to the model of permanent differentiation, a university might choose to have faculty select a different focus in each year of the tenure process to make certain that teaching, research, and service were all given attention. Or faculty might be directed toward activity in one or two areas rather than all three. Differentiation of faculty roles could be accomplished in a number of ways that would ensure adequate effort by the university for all parts of its mission.
Although the present reward system is deeply ingrained in the culture of universities, there are forces encouraging change. New technologies, decentralization, and diminishing resources in higher education are among the pressures to rethink the university. Improved reward systems must be among the first changes to be made if a new, more responsive system of higher education is to be realized.
Comments of Education and Business Leaders
Saying too much emphasis is placed on those who write research papers and not enough attention is paid to those who actually cause change and effect results, former Tenneco CEO James Ketelsen of Houston said, "We need to create in universities strong reward systems where somewhat less research and more replication and implementation lead to the work of going out and doing, not just inventing."
John T. Montford, Chancellor of Texas Tech University and Texas Tech University
Health Science Center, Lubbock:
"As we approach the 21st century, it is imperative that higher education reevaluate its role and mission in order to meet the demands of tomorrow. Assisting higher education in that process, the work of the Sid W. Richardson Foundation Forum Task Force has contributed to the discussions taking place on many campuses. "A notable recent contribution is this report... The report reviews the current reward system that exists on most campuses and discusses its weaknesses based upon survey input from provosts, deans, and faculty. It is clear that the higher education community is concerned that the current reward system offers the wrong incentives, yet there has been little movement to change. The time for change is now."Barry B. Thompson, Chancellor of the Texas A&M University System, College Station:
"At no other time in the history of higher education has the need for comprehensive, quantifiable performance indicators been higher. Funds and budgets continue to be limited, competition is increasing, and public demand for accountability remains strong. To respond, we, as proponents of higher education, must be able to develop and implement performance standards for faculty and administration that are meaningful and results-oriented. Through discussion, debate, creativity, and studies like this one, I am confident we will find the answers for which we are searching."Blaine A. Brownell, Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas:
"It is perhaps not too much to say that the ability of American higher education to respond adequately to the challenges of a new era can be measured by its progress in devising new and more appropriate means for recognizing and rewarding faculty performance."Melinda T. Cowart, Assistant Professor, College of Education, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas: "The success of any collaborative project between schools and universities is dependent upon the key participants’ ‘being there’ to communicate, collaborate, and build relationships based on trust. This requires a commitment on the part of universities to reward faculty members for getting out of the ‘ivory towers’ and actively working in the trenches - the schools. Without a rethinking of the rewards system, those energetic faculty members who wouldhelp to facilitate positive change will not have the opportunity to make a lasting contribution."
Margaret F. (Peggy) Ishler, 1996-97 President, Association of Teacher Educators, and Chair, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa:
"This report is ‘must reading’ for all administrators involved with decision-making within the university faculty reward system. Teacher educators’ expertise and scholarship, as defined in ATE’s Master Teacher Educator Standards, cannot be fully recognized in the restrictive tripartite system that now exists on most university campuses. This report substantiates the need to build on Boyer’s work in Scholarship Reconsidered..., to overhaul an archaic reward system that devalues the scholarship of application in service."
About the Report
The bound 56-page document includes an executive summary and 45 tables and graphs that illustrate and support the research discussed in the report. In addition to a letter of introduction by Valleau Wilkie and a preface by Frances van Tassell, there are comments by business and education leaders, appendixes on the Sid W. Richardson Foundation Forum, the manuscript authors, members of the Restructuring Task Force, a differentiated staffing model, acknowledgments, and a bibliography of referenced materials. The report is printed on recycled paper.
Other Reports
Other reports sponsored by the Sid W. Richardson Foundation Forum: The Professional Development School: A Commonsense Approach to Improving Education (April 1993); and Principals for the Schools of Texas: A Seamless Web of Professional Development (May 1997).
To Order Reports
Copies of the reports are available without charge by writing, calling, or faxing the Sid W. Richardson Foundation, 309 Main Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102-4088.
Telephone: 817-336-0494; Fax: 817-332-2176.